The powerful speech by Yeb Saño, member of the Philippines Climate Change Commission:
“Please … let 2012 be remembered as the year the world found the courage to … take responsibility for the future we want. I ask of all of us here, if not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?”
Watching the Deniers 
Doha looks like it has failed. Bad luck chaps – now you’ll have to rely on Obama’s climate leadership to save the world!
🙂
Bad luck us. Bad luck you. Bad luck our children.
We’ll see. So far reality is not living up to your hype.
At least you aren’t like Phil Jones, who wished death and destruction on us all for the sake of his ego.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1120593115.txt
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Your reality, maybe. Here on earth things are looking a bit grim.
Pjelke jnr on the ongoing US hurricane drought:-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578089413659452702.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Sandy was the exception, not the rule.
Eric,
Suggesting that we’ll have to rely on Obama’s climate leadership to save the world is a very alarming statement. It is tantamount to saying that nothing can save us.
Pretty much – it was my way of saying you have lost.
But you have to remember I see things differently to you – I see the policies you guys want to implement as the threat, I don’t see any threat in what I believe will be mild global warming.
Eric,
Yes, I agree that those of us who would are alarmed about the possibility of serious consequences of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and the oceans have lost in the important sense that the rate of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are continuing to increase and that no effective international action has been taken to decrease them.
I am afraid of panic reactions if sudden changes occur and some government takes dangerous action to reverse the changes. Let’s hope you are right and that global warming will be mild.
In my book, “A Bad Boy”, there is a sudden increase in sea level rise in 2020. This is a novel, and I certainly don’t expect the things in it to happen, especially not as quickly as in the book.
Why are deniers of the science so obsessed with “winning” and “losing”, like we were in some sort of crazy football match? The irony is that when the science wins vindication for the umpteenth time, we will all have lost, the deniers twice over.
At the AGU in San Francisco, meanwhile, up to 20,000 scientists gather of which 97% support the IPCC consensus.
LOL at the mention of Pielke Jnr, the “political” scientist. Notice he did not attend the American Geophysical Union.
Given that Peter Gleick, the former AGU scientific ethics committee chairman, thought it appropriate while serving as chairman to commit identity fraud to steal some heartland documents, I’m not surprised “deniers” don’t bother to turn up to AGU meetings.
They have gone back but not looking good
lock them in til they get it right
Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific, an alliance of environmental and social justice organisations, says the wording is vague and ineffective.
“[It’s] a million miles from where we need to be to even have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change,” she said.
Ms Nacpil is based in the Philippines which is currently experiencing devastation as a result of Typhoon Bopha.
“As civil society movements, we are saying that this is not acceptable,” she said.
“We cannot go back to our countries and tell them that we allowed this to happen, that we condemned our own future.
We cannot go back to the Philippines, to our dead, to our homeless, to our outrage, and tell them that we accepted this.”
While expectations were low for the Doha meeting, the failure of the talks to drive the formation of a treaty has raised doubts about the future of the United Nations climate negotiations.
Asad Rehman, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth International, described the meeting as “an empty shell, an insult to our futures”.
Don’t worry John, I’m sure there will be some token agreement at the end which you can pin your hopes to.
Nuh-uh . . this methodology is never going to work. There is no way that you can plop a few hundred folk in a room and expect anything useful to emerge particularly when the objective is the re-jigging of how modern civilisation works.
The alarmists have driven away all the rationalists now and all that is left is a cluster of light weights. Even the scientists are unclear as to what is doing what now and the strange over reaction to Monckton asking a very relevant question indicates a high degree of insecurity and uncertainty in the models.
Apart from a very small, and shrinking, sub culture on the internet and those making a buck off of this insanity there is no public interest or support for AGW debate. It was shot in the head in Copenhagen in 2009 and it has never recovered, in fact it is flat lining.
Guess that your conspiracy theory about One World government has fallen flat then keith AB ?
Hello . . here are a couple of links you might want to look over. They won’t reinforce your prejudices but they will add some clarity that, regrettably, you seem to need.
Craig, a snow depth chart from Donner Pass won’t tell you anything about global- scale cryosphere trends. Chiefio has form as an utter idiot over claims about the temperature record. There’s some clarity for you in return.
COP18 was a pantomime. It all went horribly wrong at COP15. That was the tipping point for climate alarmism. It is now absolutely clear that the world leaders don’t believe it anymore and that are just treading water until dies a death, and not before time. Carbon does not win votes any more. You had just better get used to it. .
This was pretty much the claim last year,
The actual problem is known as the tragedy of the commons,
a human failing.
It is different from your own denial stance
it was COP18 I believe .
Perhaps its time for you guys to start looking for “low carbon solutions” which we won’t mind, or which would even be economically attractive, in comparison to fossil fuels.
Its not inconceivable you will find some.
I disagree – I think the tipping point was Copenhagen, and the release of the Climategate emails.
After Climategate, politicians knew for sure it was all a game, and stopped believing.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Both the major political parties in Australia have policies to combat climate change, including the incredibly popular carbon tax, which is likely to contribute to the loss of the election for Labour. Would you jeopardise an election on an issue you don’t believe in?
You just keep on thinking Monckton is hilarious, we all think he’s hilarious as well, only he’s not in on the joke. I bet you were rolling on the floor pissing your pants when he came up with his AIDS long term island holiday retreat idea. That was a classic. You just keep bolstering your credibility by leaning on the craziness of Monckton.
Politicians often say things they don’t believe, to pick up votes from the gullible.
talks in Qatar have agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020.
The deal, agreed to by nearly 200 nations, keeps the protocol as the only legally binding plan for combating global warming.
Critics say a better agreement is needed because the current one only covers developed nations whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15 per cent.
A UN conference passed a package of agreements on Saturday combating climate change and extended the life of the Kyoto Protocol, the only binding pact on curbing Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions, its chairman said.
The new pact concluded 12 days of tough haggling in Doha and comes after several days of deadlocked talks.
The talks, scheduled to have closed on Friday, ran a whole day into extra time, paralysed as rich and poor nations faced off on issues including finance and compensation for climate damage.
An extension of Kyoto was finally approved with the 27-member European Union, Australia, Switzerland and eight other industrialised nations signing up for binding emission cuts by 2020.
Conference chairman Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah finally rushed through the package of deals, which he termed the Doha Climate Gateway, riding roughshod over country objections as he swung the gavel in quick succession proclaiming: “It is so decided.”
18 years of failure and counting
Kyoto is now a joke – without binding targets for Russia, China, Canada, India and Japan, Kyoto only accounts for 15% of CO2 emissions.
So Kyoto is now an economic suicide pact, if it was ever anything else. The nations which have refused Kyoto will have a substantial built in economic advantage over countries stupid enough to pay it more than lip service.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/08/us-climate-talks-idUSBRE8B60QU20121208
The madness continues
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the lead Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works, held a climate-denial press conference at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on Thursday. With Inhofe was an activist who believes the UN is starting the apocalypse and a British Lord who was banned from all UN climate conferences for impersonating the representative from Myanmar.
Senator Inhofe’s first guest was Cathie Adams, the President of the Texas Eagle Forum and former Texas GOP chair. Adams must have felt quite uncomfortable speaking at a United Nations function, as she has maintained for over a decade that the UN was the anti-Christ’s vehicle for stealthily taking over the world. From a 1999 newsletter:
The Bible tells us that in the end times there will be a world government headed by a world leader, called the anti-Christ, who will profess a world religion, but did you ever think you would live in the day when these things would come into being? That is exactly what the United Nations is doing behind the backs of most Americans.
Adams has singled out environmentalism as part of the UN’s sinister agenda, suggesting a fictional UN Pledge of Allegiance would require “worship[ping] the Earth.” She also believes, among other things, that the CO2 emissions do not cause climate change and that vaccination is a plot to steal American freedom.
Senator Inhofe’s other guest, Lord Christopher Monckton, has a storied history of making things up, especially with respect to climate science. It’s a pattern Monckton fell into at the Doha negotiations, where he took the platform reserved for the Myanmarese delegation and claimed to be speaking for “Asian coastal nations.” The double pretense got him ejected from the nation of Qatar and banned from every future UN climate summit.
One might think this clown show would embarrass the Senator, but his record suggests otherwise: Senator Inhofe has claimed that climate science is a hoax that contravenes the will of God and is currently working with the Heartland Institute — which suggests that climate change advocates are like the Unabomber — to de-fund the Environmental Protection Agency
A trio of complete fruit loops.
Inhofe is the pious spiv,the fossil fuel industry stooge, who employed Morano at the public’s expense until it became too embaressing even for him to so blatantly subvert the public interest.
Monckton’s latest stunt demonstrates his compulsive disorder is barely controllable Anyone who objects to his behavior is of course ‘pompous’, while his own self-indulgence is unreproachable.
Adams is a privileged medievalist in pearls.
Is you the “guy”
?
I mean the “dude” ?
I notice none of you making similar statements about unacceptable disorder when skeptic conferences or meetings are disrupted by climate change fanatics.
Frankly I think what Monckton did was hilarious.
I already knew you thought that Eric 🙂
What skeptic conferences have been disrupted BTW?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/11/monckton-calls-activists-hitler-youth is the first one which comes to mind.
Another example of Monckton’s poor judgement. He rarely wastes an opportunity to remind people what a liability he is.
Monckton is a stage act, cannot hack it when it comes to a one on one debate.
Peter Hadfield (potholer54) has been engaging in a debate of sorts with Christopher Monckton on WattsUpWithThat; however, Monckton has failed to respond to Hadfield’s latest crushing salvo, in which he caught Monckton misrepresenting his sources (as usual).
Monckton has asserted that he has been too busy on his latest speaking tour to respond to Hadfield. Indeed, we can attest that Monckton has been busy, and will soon publish a post regarding one of his latest misinformation seminars. However, as Hadfield notes in the video below, Monckton had promised a response prior to leaving for this particular misinformation tour, and failed to deliver one.
Went back and looked at some of the replies to the hand grenade I threw in their the other day at WUWT
They have not removed any of my posts but they removed some of there own.
The answer to my question ” If Phil jones declared in June 2011 that the warming since 1995 was statistically, it would seem a bit confusing to be now saying that it is not”
the answer from courtney was that 2010 was an exceptionally warm year which is why Jones said that.
The contradiction to the claim of no warming, obviously slipped his mind.
anyway his post re that has been removed.
Global Warming is bumping against the edge of statistical significance, but its still effectively a flatline – nothing like what models which postulate climate sensitivities of 3c / doubling or more assert should be happening.
1/3 of all human CO2 emissions occurred since 1998 – but temperatures have barely shifted.
Same old cherry-picks,same old incuriosity and avoidance of explanations offered to you many times already. Mr Reliable in the worst possible sense.
Its you who is swallowing the lies. The MET office has tried to pass off the flatline as a series of coincidences, but they aren’t offering any predictions of when the flatline will end.
NOAA foolishly offered a prediction of what it would take to falsify their models – and that prediction has come to pass.
Pseudosciences like alarmist climate science thrive on vagueness.
Meanwhile, on planet earth, things are looking a little grim.
No they haven’t. They’ve explained them as the result of cherry picking start and end points.
Eric isn’t just a credulous cretin, Eric is a liar.
I think that you got that correct zoot
Eric Worrall says:
December 8, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Wrong. THULE / Op Site (on your list) is an airport station.
ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/GCOS/WMO-Normals/RA-VI/GL/04202.TXT
of course it was not
Another great reply by one of them to the GISS data was to put up an Urban heat island Jo Nova link
These morons do not even know that GISS does not use UHI stns.
Then that Courtney fool put up RSS and Hardrut 3 unadjusted on the same WFT graph
The effin scales are not even the same
putting them on the same scale you get this
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t12.jpg?w=500&h=325
Would like to get Courtney over here, one on one by himself
GISS uses Thule station – an airport station. I checked their list of stations, its still on the list.
My name is Ben Namakin, and I come from the small island state of Kiribati in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This is a place in which, along with our other pacific islands neighbors, we contribute less than 0.001% to the global greenhouse gas emissions; sadly, we are currently paying the price for global emissions with rising sea levels, droughts and saltwater intrusion contaminating our groundwater.
Kiribati was the first place to ring in the new millennium in 2000 and will also likely be the first state to be shown on international news as being underwater. What steps should those in our region take? We may be small, but we are not insignificant
According to the climate sceptics party i , Australia’s emissions are 1000 times less than Kiribati,
Sob sob send more money…
The Full list of GIStemp data stns
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/v3.temperature.inv.txt
“GISS does not use UHI stns” Gavin Schmidt climatalogist NASA
Wrong. THULE / Op Site (on your list) is an airport station.
ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/GCOS/WMO-Normals/RA-VI/GL/04202.TXT
Stations like this are not intended to give an accurate background temperature, they are intended to measure the temperature on the airfield.
Given that the THULE / OP SITE US Army airfield is contaminated by significant heat from aircraft operation, and tarmac runways, it qualifies as a UHI station.
I haven’t bothered looking through the rest of the GISS list, but I can guess what I would find.
I’ve had a look at the pictures of the location of the instruments, it doesn’t appear that they are near the runways. How close would they need to be to be affected by UHI?
Pretty close RT
probably irrelevant question as it does not seem to appear in the GISS stn list
Did you really not bother to look through the whole list? I bet you did and that was the best you could come up with.
used lat and long to see if it was on GISS under a different name .
Negative,
THE list I posted was GISS,
So WUWT refers to a NOAA list
Thule contaminated by significant heat from man-made structures?
BULLSHIT,Eric. None of your numpty paranoid liar friends can produce any study to demonstrate their claims about Thule. NONE.
You and the Wattstrolls are making it up. Repetition is no substitute for genuine content….all “Thule=UHI contaminated” claims are just lies of the most laughable and vacuous kind.
The Thule airstrips have a higher albedo than the glacial outwash they are laid on. The buildings at Thule have for obvious reasons very good insulation.
The instruments are positioned well away from human structures. And even with UHI contamination,long term trends can be established with knowledge of station site history. The whole UHI-destroys-temperature-record-credibility thing is juvenile.
Grow a f**kin brain,will you? Try and think for yourself for once,eh?
Thule has not been on the GISS list since 1981
946 km (*) Thule/Op Site 76.5 N 68.8 W 431042020010 < 10,000 1946 – 1981
43104202001 THULE/OP SITE 76.52 -68.83 77 186R -9HIxxCO 3A-9POLAR DESERT A 0
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=76.52++-68.83
Pan out a little
Substantial settlement with what looks like a large airports, harbour, lots of houses and and an airfield just over a thousand feet of the google maps coordinates.
I call UHI station. For starters, the actual location of the station is probably close to a building, probably next to the airfield, which seems to be the pattern with “urban” stations in the arctic. Second, in the arctic, you have you use huge amounts of heat to keep and airfield operational – large amounts of high pressure steam, to melt the ice stuck to the aircraft, and to keep the runway clear.
Salt gritting only works down to about -10c or so. It wouldn’t take much waste heat from local activity to produce substantial “arctic warming”, especially in the winter.
Boring speculation is no substitute for observation. Produce the papers on Thule’s so-called UHI effect on its weather station or bugger off.
I will, as soon as Watts gets around to examining it. But given the disastrous state of the North American mainland land stations, I’m not betting Thule siting is any better.
Eric, it’s the 21st-century already. Catch up.
This is well written but fails to recognize that at 4 to 6 degrees is well beyond stability, They would only be interim temps on a climb to 12 and beyond
http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/six-degrees-of-devastation-20121207-2b1d5.html
question at AGU
IS Earth F**ked?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/is_earth_f_ked_at_2012_agu_meeting_scientists_consider_advocacy_activism.html
ans,,, No but humans probably are
More pain for the Philippines
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-09/weakened-bopha-returns-to-philippines/4417308
Newman overturned the Levy legislation
A new levy is estimated to cost NSW $100 million a year as 2,000 rubbish trucks a month carry Sydney’s waste north to be dumped over the border in Queensland.
The transfers began in July when the NSW Government increased its dumping levy by $10 to $95 per tonne, making it cheaper for companies to drive rubbish up north.
The levy is intended to encourage recycling, and is used to raise money for the state’s infrastructure.
But the director of Dial-a-Dump Industries, Ian Malouf, says the levy is too expensive and costing the state millions of dollars in lost revenue.
“It’s a tax at the end of the day so the states missing out on tax which is going to cost us roads and infrastructure,” he said.
“I think it’s going to cost us in the order of [$100 million] in the first 12 months. If it’s let go around, I think it will escalate to around $200 million.
“We’re burning it up the highway. It is a carbon contradiction – we’re burning it up in fuel.”
The NSW Government says it is working the Environment Protection Authority and the Queensland Government to try and resolve the issue.
“We’ve been reviewing the waste levies and we’ll have an announcement early in the new year which will make it competitive and certainly make going to Queensland not an attractive option,” said NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker.
Despite the reports, Queensland’s Environment Minister Andrew Powell says he has not seen evidence that 2,000 trucks a month are travelling from Sydney to dump waste in the Sunshine State.e
http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-levy-makes-queensland-a-tempting-dump-20120611-205xp.html
Read the loony tune denier comments at the bottom
http://rt.com/news/argentina-floods-toxic-cloud-499/
A new report has confirmed the world is warming at a rate consistent with a 22-year-old prediction from the United Nations’ science body.
In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast the rate at which temperatures would rise over a 40-year period.
A report published today in the journal Nature says that at the halfway mark, the rate of warming is consistent with the original predictions.
Professor Matt England from the University of New South Wales says the findings send a message to doubters.
“Anybody out there lying that the IPCC projects are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely off line with this … the analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true,” he said.
The finding has been released in the wake of the latest climate talks in Doha, Qatar, which some critics say achieved little.
At the marathon talks, which had to be extended due to lack of consensus, almost 200 nations, including Australia, agreed to extend the Kyoto protocol till 2020.
But the world’s worst emitters, such as the US and China, are not part of that agreement.
Green groups say the Doha talks delivered a weakened Kyoto Protocol and no new money for helping poorer nations achieve cuts in emissions.
But Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the talks were a stepping stone towards striking a deal by 2015 that will include biggest polluters.
“The science is telling us very clearly that we need a wider international agreement including all the major emitters, including the US and China, they’re the biggest polluters in the world,” he said.
Hilarious – RT blames Lord Monckton for COP18 failure (h/t WUWT)
http://rt.com/news/climate-change-summit-failure-518/
The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.
RC’s Raypierre
WUWT’s Anthony Watts
Apologies to richard courtney
It was not Richard who debunked himself, it was Werner,
WUWT comments
reply
Werner Brozek says:
December 7, 2012 at 8:18 am
john byatt says:
December 7, 2012 at 2:56 am
Richard, another problem I have with your answer is that it was only in June last year when Phil Jones declared that the warming since 1995 was now statistically significant,
WE cannot confuse people to going from significant to not significant in just twelve months, it is not something that i would find convincing and again it would make it hard to convince others.
You are correct that as of December 31, 2009 there was NO significant warming for 15 years and as of December 31, 2010, there WAS significant warming for 16 years. That is because 2010 was a very hot year
Mike, is it just you and me who do this or is every one prone to it?
COP18: “OPEN YOU EYES TO THE STARK REALITY…. IF NOW NOW, THEN WHEN?”
Get involved in local politics sometime – campaigning, canvassing, delivering leaflets. Choose a party you feel comfortable with, e.g. the Green Party.
For me this period in my life was very educational. Most people couldn’t care less about big issues, not because they don’t care as such, but because they think anything a politician says is a pack of lies.
And the issues right in front of them bother them more – the pothole at the end of the street, which damages their car, which the local council *still* hasn’t fixed, or the broken streetlight near their house, or maybe the blocked drain which floods when it rains, matter far more to most people than whether Canada signs up to Kyoto.
The successful campaigns I was involved with were very much about local issues. Politicians inspire trust and support by taking the trouble to notice and appear to care about the local issues which matter to people. Anything else is just noise.
One of the worst thing which happened for the green movement was when mainstream politicians got onto the bandwagon. People saw the same lying spivs who had let them down time and again pontificating about the great things they were doing to combat climate change. Its not difficult to work out what happened next.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
However we note your heartfelt concern for the green movement. You have no idea what a comfort it is to know you care.~
zoot, many greens are as much lying spivs as other politicians. Look at how quickly they distanced themselves from the bioethanol catastrophe, without any real contrition over the part they played creating the problems.
But John really cares, and really believes. If his energies weren’t subverted by a lie, he could be out there making a real difference to people’s lives. I actually quite like John, and his sincerity. I know this might be difficult to believe, and I know John thinks I’m scum, but it is the truth. I like watching some of you squirm, but for John the unravelling of the green movement is going to hit really hard – for a while he really will believe the world is going to end, and everything he cares about will end in ruin. I hope he survives this experience, finds a way back from the brink, without losing his sincerity and desire to do good.
Well done to the science community,
just as models predicted the Higss boson and then experiment confirmed the reality
thus the Models for the expected warming due to adding CO2 to the atmosphere has now been verified as fact .
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html
Preview
In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included. So how did this success arise? In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale.
Governments should pay Nature to make findings such as this free view,
.
I predict with 95% confidence, based on my models of GHG warming, and insolation, that the temperature in 30 years time will be somewhere between frozen helium and boiling rock. Prove me wrong!
Yes Eric. Whatever you say Eric.
Now please go outside and play; the grown-ups are busy.
I tell you, my model shall be validated by future observations!
How could your hypothesis be falsified?
Where is the data you used and why aren’t you prepared to share it with people who take a different point of view to you?
Totally unscientific according to your criteria.
But of course, your science by assertion carries so much more weight than the thousands of peer reviewed studies which you disagree with.~
I disagree – my hypothesis that the future temperature will be somewhere between frozen helium and boiling rock *embraces* other theories. In case you hadn’t caught on, my hypothesis is that one of the other hypothesis must be right. Just as climate models embrace a range of possibilities, including some extreme possibilities such as high climate sensitivities, I felt that we could extend the confidence by embracing a far wider range of climate models, including some outlandish ones, such as the possibility the Earth might be wrenched from its current orbit by an undetected rogue planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet
Only by considering all the possibilities will be arrive at a clear picture of what the future might contain.
So what’s your null hypothesis?
(This should be good for a giggle)
The great Kevin Trenberth suggested that alarmist theory is so certain, that it should be considered the null hypothesis.
As my boiling rock theory embraces Trenberth’s proposed null hypothesis theory, I feel safe in demanding that you should either accept my theory, or that the onus is on you to try to disprove it.
No Eric, you yourself said that to be scientific the research data had to be available. Where is your data?
Where has your hypothesis been subjected to peer review?
Please state your null hypothesis (plagiarising other scientists is forbidden).
Why is it that climatologists have to meet strict conditions in presenting their findings, yet faithful believers of the church of denial are exempt from any such conditions?
I claim Climate Science precedent a justification for refusing your request.
As the great Phil Jones once said,
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3502.htm
Ah yes, the old “I know I’m a child molester, but he’s one too”, defence.
Probably not exactly the same thing.
Umm Eric, helium cannot be frozen. I have doubts that you could validate a parking ticket.
At least one of you is on the ball ;-). Helium can be frozen, sort of, though it takes a lot of messing about. http://phys.org/news160408487.html . And I did only cite a 95% confidence level.
Well that’s embarassing. hope nobody picks up on it.
So you agree that global warming stopped in 2005 (Fact!)?
Oh happy day.
Only until I change my mind in the next hour or so ;-).
You can’t even consider the possibility that global warming finished in 2005 (Fact!), so you have no hope of arriving at a clear picture of anything.
I think you will find that my new theory embraces this possibility, amongst others.
You are right, helium can be frozen under pressure
Is your argument that we should abandon everything we know, or think we know, in favour of deciding we can never really know anything because the possibilities are virtually limitless?
My argument is that the 95% confidence band presented by alarmists is embarrassingly broad – something I’ve said more than once.
Statistics isn’t your strong suit, is it.
I’m no Steve McIntyre. But you will note that my 95% band includes even more possibilities than the RealClimate band, so it must be better, right?
In fact you have no idea what “statistically significant” and “95% confidence” actually mean.
Yawn. Let me know when the world starts warming again.
Which proves you have no idea what “statistically significant” and “95% confidence” actually mean.
Thank you for reinforcing my statement.
Who are you to decide what’s embarassingly broad? Why don’t you narrow down your own theory, you know, just a little bit, then write a paper, have it published, have its conclusions accepted by every major scientific body on the planet, accept your nobel prize, become a celebrity, fall into obscurity, become addicted to crack and eventually choke on your own vomit? Or are you just a nobody on the internet just like me?
I’m just a nobody on the Internet – but you’re right, broad predictions are the way to go. If the RealClimate 95% confidence band was just a little broader, it would also embrace some cooling scenarios, which could provide even more protection from falsification.
Why would you veer off into a hypothetical situation of expanding the confidence bands? Sounds suspiciously like an accusation.
Climate hero Phil Jones has already expanded the confidence range of temperature flatlines to 20 years. I’m just pre-empting their expansion of the 95% model prediction confidence band.