Tonight the TV in the U.S. will have some competition show. Two guys will put out as many lies as possible without being outright caught on them. The prize is a blender.
You might want to talk about that or whatever …
Back to Main
October 22, 2012
Open Thread 2012-26
Comments
In spite of the fact that Ambassador Chris Stevens, in early September, had just returned from a business/pleasure trip to Europe and he was needed in Tripoli, Libya to help form a new government because the US had dispatched the former one, he was scheduled to be in Benghazi, located in dangerously volatile eastern Libya, for five days. Obama’s false explanation was that Stevens was was in Benghazi “to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital,” as if Benghazi is a bed of roses and not a hotbed of militant extremism.
One of his missions there was to coordinate arms shipments to Turkey, formerly discussed here on MOA. Another probable Stevens’ mission was to coordinate drone strikes. Stevens knew the militant groups in eastern Libya intimately. He had bee Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli for two years 2007-2009, and for six months last year he was stationed in Benghazi to coordinate the militias in their revolt against the Libyan government. Now there was a drone campaign against the Libyan militias.
CNN, Jun 7, 2012
Libyan official: U.S. drones seeking jihadists in Libya
A senior Libyan official told CNN that the U.S. is flying surveillance missions with drones over suspected jihadist training camps in eastern Libya because of concerns over rising activity by al Qaeda and like-minded groups in the region but said that to the best of his knowledge, they had not been used to fire missiles at militant training camps in the area.
The revelation follows a failed attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on Tuesday night, which a shadowy jihadist group claimed was to avenge the death of al Qaeda No. 2 Abu Yahya al-Libi.
The official said that one militant commander operating in Derna, Abdulbasit Azuz, had complained that a drone strike had targeted his training camp in the east of Libya. Last month, there were reports of explosions outside the Derna area in the vicinity of the camps, according to a different source.
The CIA’s covert drone strike program is rarely publicly acknowledged. It has been widely reported that drones have been deployed to target militants in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
We know what the reaction of people to drone-launched rocket strikes is.
Don Bacon, makes sense. Especially as the aim obviously was to get rid of the Benghazi CIA station.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 22 2012 17:49 utc | 2
b. It has to be said: The questions are lies, too.
Posted by: Jeremiah Cornelius | Oct 22 2012 19:13 utc | 3
Presidential debate? Yaw-aw-awnnn.
At this point I’m rooting for Obama, so that Democrats get to finally appreciate what a truly despicable Democrat looks like.
Clinton, unfettered by reelection, was a total disaster. He ended Glass-Steagall, legalized trading of derivatives in total secrecy, and enacted China PNTR (great sucking sound of jobs out of the US). Yet Democrats never connected the dots, since the effects came after Clinton left office.
With an Obama second term, we may get to see the effects of his severe erosion of the rule of law–no prosecutions of banksters, major polluters, war profiteers, etc. And we may have the opportunity to witness up close and personal some Americans targeted for assassination or jailed forever under NDAA.
And Obama would have the opportunity to gut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which is why I believe he was sent to Washington in the first place.
However, Democrats being a tribal species, they may well forgive Obama for anything he does, no matter how despicable.
Then we’ll know that we’re in real, deep trouble.
Posted by: JohnH | Oct 22 2012 19:18 utc | 4
only a screwed-up society would buy the line that the ‘lesser evil’ is the person currently exercising power w/ downright ‘evil’ ends (extra-judicial killings, implementing imperialist foreign policy, commander-in-chief of overt & covert actions that include actual war crimes, etc..) rather than the person who has not yet done so…
Posted by: b real | Oct 22 2012 21:02 utc | 5
@ b real
Exactly. It’s the difference between deciding between a known criminal with a record and a potential criminal, and claiming that the former is less dangerous than the latter.
Bacon–you mean “deciding between a known criminal with a record and a [yet to be prosecuted] criminal.”
Since BO has yet to prosecute any banksters, polluters, or war profiteers, Romney and his ilk can rest assured that they’ll never be prosecuted and are free to rule the rest of us with impunity.
BTW, a few years ago, there were people saying that they had the goods on BO for something he did in Chicago. BO’s rise paralleled Blagojevich’s, and they both came out of the same Chicago cesspool, so I wouldn’t be surprised if BO has some serious skeletons in the closet.
He can only hope that a Pres. Romney will be as nice to him as BO has been to Romney’s ilk.
Posted by: JohnH | Oct 22 2012 21:59 utc | 7
FYI, how about this?
Subject: LAWYER OBAMA
This is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler , TX ..
This is legit. I checked it out myself at https://www.iardc.org The acronym
stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee.
It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict
and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.)
* Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that
I worked so hard and long to earn.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up
Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no
longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.
A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is
not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license.
No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused
of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before
the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. “He did not hold the title of Professor of Law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbarttv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there, Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion! Our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony, it’s hard to keep facts straight.
Keep this moving – educate others.
In doubt? check it out through the sources provided!
Posted by: lambent1 | Oct 22 2012 22:05 utc | 8
@8 Errr, lambent, I’m struggling to see the point of your post.
Obama no longer holds a law license?
Okkkkkkkkkkkkkay. Now explain to me why a law license is a requirement for the job of President of the United States.
Obama was a senior lecturer, but not a law professor?
Okkkkkkkkkkkkkay. Now explain to me why “Law Professor” in a prerequisite for the job of President of the United States.
Obama’s script writer wrote a speech that confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution?
Okkkkkkkkkkkkkay. Now explain to me why you have to pass a test on “The difference between the DoI and the Constitution” in order to be the President of the United States..
For the life of me I can’t see what it is that you are attempting to insinuate.
That Obama is less than the man everyone thought he was back in 2008?
Well, gosh!, knock me over with a feather!
That Obama isn’t fit to be President?
Huh? The voters get to decide that, don’t they….
That Obama isn’t eligible to be President?
Surely that’s not your argument, or is it?
Because, to be honest, I simply don’t know what you are arguing about.
Posted by: Johnboy | Oct 22 2012 23:47 utc | 9
Lambent, the 14th Amendment indeed confers that right. That’s the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No law student is a lawyer, nor are they made so by graduating, but only after passing the bar. Mitt may well not be a lawyer either.
Posted by: scottindallas | Oct 23 2012 0:46 utc | 10
only a screwed-up society would buy the line that the ‘lesser evil’ …
well said b real.
I think it was Khrisnamurti who said, (I paraphrase from memory) “it is not a sign of health to be well adjusted in an insane society”.
I have chosen to avoid wasting my time listening to liars obfuscating. I think Richard Heinberg nailed it in “Scapegoat-in-Chief: The Race for the Oval Office…” :
The first two U.S. presidential debates have been painful to watch. Both candidates are running on platforms constructed from verbal hallucinations about the nation’s past, present, and future. And the American people are being asked to choose between those hallucinations in order to select the best available scapegoat for the next four years of national economic decline. The race is burning up billions of dollars in advertising money, yet few citizens seem genuinely excited about either candidate, with households evidently viewing the proceedings as a prime-time ritual combat in which it is the winner, rather than the loser, who will ultimately receive the fatal thumbs-down.
Most of the delusions and fantasies that pervade the debates can be grouped into three baskets:
Energy….
The Economy….
Climate Change….
Worth the read.
Posted by: juannie | Oct 23 2012 1:03 utc | 11
Most of the delusions and fantasies that pervade the debates can be grouped into three baskets:
Energy….
The Economy….
Climate Change….
Didn’t read the article, but certainly the last of those 3 items, Human-caused Global Warming [sneakily re-labelled “climate Change” several years ago] is a fantasy
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals [UK] Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
Initially the UK Met office claimed that the above article was misinterpreting their report, The Met Office, whose lead was then followed by the usual mob of shrill hysterics, accused the author of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as he had stated, although it put out the figures from which he drew our graph.
Eventually the UK MET office decided to stop lying and finally conceded and agreed that the author was completely correct in stating that there has been no significant warming for the last 16yrs
CO2 has increased dramatically in that time-frame yet Warming has stalled completely, contradicting pretty much everything said on the subject by the so-called “climate scientists”
Posted by: FtJ | Oct 23 2012 1:32 utc | 12
which in my opinion would certainly qualify it as a fantasy
Posted by: FtJ | Oct 23 2012 1:34 utc | 13
@12:
Meh…it’s been debunked already. Also, Daily Mail? HAH!
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Oct 23 2012 2:38 utc | 14
@12:
In fact, just spent all of 30 seconds googling “global warming stopped 16 years ago debunked”, and got this (among a slew of others):
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming
…in which the author is…uh…not a fan of your friend Mr. Rose. 🙂
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Oct 23 2012 3:05 utc | 15
Really?
That’s not what the UK MET office said – Instead of making snide remarks about the Mail you might actually bother to make an effort tounderstand the issue concerned. [Admittedly mouthing off about ‘debunking’ is a lot easier than actually understanding the issue]
The UK MET Office, as I said earlier, actually later retracted their original claims re: cherry-picking and subsequently agreed that the author was correct when he stated that there was no warming of any significance in the last 16yrs
Simply making clearly untrue statements to the contrary won’t erase the fact that the UK MET office eventually, and very reluctantly, agreed with the author.
The UK MET Office confirmed on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently:
‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’
surely you’re not now claiming that the UK MET Office is lying about what it’s own data shows?
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 3:18 utc | 16
SF = FjT ???
Mountains of climate model data saying that Europe gets colder, SW US gets hotter and more drought, mid US gets bigger storms, arctic ice gonna disappear. Don’t know my facts? Heh! Answer me this…WHERE THE F*** IS MY RAIN?!?!? And why do I have 6 more highly compressed cloud layers appearing, with humidity so high it’s keeping our ‘June Gloom’ around well into September?
If you’re gonna show off what I’d charitably call Denialist Fiction, at least pick a study nobody’s heard of yet, so we can all join in the fun and pick it apart.
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Oct 23 2012 3:27 utc | 17
I’m delighted that you have finally managed to get to grips with Google, but so what?
A) Mr Rose is not my friend though I understand you inserted that there in a rather lame effort to somehow discredit
B) Your ThinkProgess article is authored by Joe Romm who is a certifiable foaming-at-the-mouth loon and an out and out bully
C) ThinkProgress is part-financed by convicted criminal George Soros. I have about as much respect for any Soros financed organistion as I would for, say, a Guardian report on Syria
Romm’s article is a wonderful example of “Bait-and-Switch” – perhaps if you actually did some proper research rather than just running off and grabbing the first thing you found on google you’d have realised that.
Romm ignores the actual claim “No significant warming for 16yrs” and proceeds to attack a strawman of his own making i.e that “there has been no warming”
Despite what Romm has claimed, it is still a fact that the UK MET Office has confirmed Mr Rose’s claim that there has been “No significant warming for 16yrs”
Mr Romm is a very dishonest individual, as can be seen from his very first graph
Prof Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, compiler of the one of the worlds most important and most referenced temperature datasets, admits that any period of no warming period equal to or greater than 15yrs would indicate that the Climate Scientists have go it seriously wrong and would need to do a major rethink – well we’ve now had just that, so Joe Romm, with his dishonest strawman arguments, can go fuck himself quite frankly.
I’ll take the MET Office’s [belated] admission that Rose is correct over the dishonest Romm’s obfuscation and strawman arguments, anyday
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 3:43 utc | 18
I can only presume that you do actually think that the UK MET Office is lying then.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 3:45 utc | 19
Just finished looking at the “debate”. It’s what you would expect: one man’s lies against the other man’s lies. They can’t fundamentally debate foreign policy at all, because under all the bs and spin, Obama and Romney basically agree on most everything that involves war. The policy is war. That’s it. The moderator of this whole tapestry of lies was Bob Schieffer, who basically performed the service of a court eunuch. But what else could possibly happen? Surely not some question about drones or civilian casualties.
Schieffer asked the softball, obligatory questions, such as what the candidates thought was the role of the United States in the world. And Obama produced for the gazillionth time the nausea-making answer, that “the United States is the indispensable nation in the world”.
It is hard to imagine any voter would be swayed one way or the other by such a pointless spectacle. Almost every question provided a platform for these candidates to rehash every stupid talking point they have been regurgitating over and over, points which had little or no bearing on foreign policy.
“Mountains of climate model data
whatever mountains the Climate models are producing, they are not composed of empirical “data” – the output of computerised modelling is governed by the phrase “garbage in – garbage out”
you go with the garbage if you want
Sane people give precedence to actual empirical data.
Modeling output is not empirical data
The UK MET Office produce empirical data – the models do not
And the real data shows that there is “No significant warming for 16yrs” – that happens to be something that the model-output has completely failed indicate could be possible in conjunction with increase in CO2.
No Climate Model produced any output that indicate that a 16yr period of no warming could occur in conjunction with increasing CO2 – so obviously the modeled output is at best flawed and at worst worthless since that is exactly what has just occurred.
so you can stick with the models if you want.
Some of us prefer to pay attention to actual reality rather than rely on Modeled garbage
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 3:59 utc | 21
” arctic ice gonna disappear”
Dr Wellington = Chicken Little??
In the last 20 years such claims about ‘Ice Free Arctic’ have been made many times, though curiously the date by which this is ‘predicted’ to occur always seems to change.
So far I have heard that statement made in relation to the year 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020, 2030 etc etc ad nauseum.
For example:
November 16, 2007 – “Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 ” – http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
12 December 2007 – “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ “- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Friday, 27 June 2008 – “Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer” – http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html
12 August 2008 – “First Arctic Ice-Free Summer Could be in 2015” – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/arctic-melting-2015.php
August 31st, 2009 – “Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013” – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/
October 15, 2009 – “Arctic Largely Ice Free in Summer Within Ten Years?” – “>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091015-arctic-ice-free-gone-global-warming.html
When each predicted date approaches and the prediction is shown to be nothing but hysterical alarmist nonsense, a great palaver is convened and “hey, presto!” a new date, far off into the future, is conjured out of thin air, (or out of some pseudo-scientists rear-end, for all we know)
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 4:09 utc | 22
@22:
Since you seem to be fond of UK mass media, here’s one for you:
Arctic sea ice levels to reach record low within days – Guardian (YUK!)
Keep rowing upstream with a colander for a paddle…see where that get’s you.
“You’ll get no more spiritual advice from me. As a guru, I am through!”
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Oct 23 2012 4:40 utc | 24
Antarctic Ice levels, both Sea-Ice and Land Ice, reached record levels this year. Not a word about that in your scary ooga-booga Arctic Ice fairytale. In fact your Fairytale Arctic Ice Guardian report only mentions the Antarctic in the context of rising temperature. This is completely deceptive since only a very small region, the Western penninsula, could be claimed to have experienced any rise (and a slight one at that) It doesn’t get more ‘cherrypicked’ and dishonest than that
For several years now Antarctic Ice levels have increased. Each year brings a new record.
Climate Models have completely failed to predict any of this. garbage in – garbage out.
You stick to your computerised model garbage, I’ll pay attention to actual real data
++++++++
Regarding the Guardian – it’s propensity for lying is legendary at this stage
For example on 10 October 2012 they claimed:
Confirmation of one of the worst global harvests in years will come on Thursday
A mere 5 days later the truth emerges
15 October 2012
World grain production last year was the highest on record; this year’s crop is just 2.6% smaller
Two completely contradictory statements in the space of five days with no acknowledgement or retraction of the blatantly deceptive statement made on 10th Oct
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 5:19 utc | 25
SF, no 22, empirically you will never know you are dead …
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 5:22 utc | 26
why do you post such obvious nonsense – I am very much alive. The fact that I just typed that is all the empirical evidence required
are you sure you actually know what “empirical” actually means?
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 5:44 utc | 27
The existence of ice melt in the arctic is not empirical proof that it was caused by man, through increased CO2.
That CO2 is the culprit is the core belief of the Global Warmists new religion
Ice melt in the Arctic is proof only that there is ice melting in the Arctic – not proof that that it was caused by CO2 or any other human activity
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 5:52 utc | 28
Science requires empirical proof – all else is akin to religion
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 5:53 utc | 29
Here’s a small bit of political empiricism in the South Causcuses.
Naturally, one can only wonder about the backstage activity accompanying this friendly visit. It seems to be too late for an effective October surprise, but setting up logistical support would make sense for a possible longer term effort, at least from the point of view of (some of) those engaged here.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 23 2012 6:20 utc | 30
no 27 let me explain in detail:
1) empirical – from Wikipedia – “The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation. ”
2) All you have observed and experimented with the whole of your life is that you are indeed alive
3) When you are dead you will not be able to observe or experiment with
clear?
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 6:42 utc | 31
Having said that, global warming can be empirically proven now i.e. “observed”
This country here, Germany, for the first time in its history, produces very drinkable red wine.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 6:51 utc | 32
*I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SERIOUS QUESTIONS*
http://tinyurl.com/8gkon2o
Posted by: denk | Oct 23 2012 6:54 utc | 33
@31 – “clear?
as mud – your statements have absolutely no relevance to anything previously stated by myself or anyone else on this page.
Definition of IRRELEVANT:
ir·rel·e·vant
adjective
1.not relevant; not applicable or pertinent.
usage: He has a propensity for making statements that are completely irrelevant.
2.Law. (of evidence) having no probative value upon any issue in the case.
========
@32
“Having said that, global warming can be empirically proven now i.e. “observed””
Definition of COMPREHENSION
a : the act or action of grasping with the intellect : understanding
b : knowledge gained by comprehending
c : the capacity for understanding fully
Absolutely no one here has stated that “there has been no Global Warming”
I have stated clearly “There has been no warming of any significance for the last 16yrs”
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 7:16 utc | 34
“This country here, Germany, for the first time in its history, produces very drinkable red wine.”
Since when did “Germany” come to be used as a Synonym for “Global”?
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 7:17 utc | 35
no 35, I guess conversation attempts of oistrichs are laudable as they are running the danger of getting extinct.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 7:40 utc | 36
Back to topic, the debate, Glenn Greenwald has a very good commentary on the charade in The Guardian
“But if there is one thing the 2008 campaign should have permanently taught, it is that campaign rhetoric often bears little relationship to what a person will do once empowered. More important, it is almost certainly the case that an Obama-led attack on Iran would generate far more public support than a Romney-led attack, because most Democrats will almost certainly cheer for the former while pretending to be horrified by the latter, will while Republicans would support both (that’s the dynamic that made the very same “counter-terrorism” policies that were so divisive in the Bush years become wildly popular once Obama embraced them).
That’s true on the international level as well. Recall the 2008 CIA report fretting about growing anti-war sentiment in western Europe and concluding that the best weapon to safeguard against its continuation would be the election of Obama. That’s because, the CIA presciently realized, Obama’s election would massively increase public support for US wars because it would be a kind, sophisticated, progressive constitutional scholar rather than a swaggering, evangelical Texas cowboy who would be the face of them. Add to all that the Nixon-to-China dynamic – just as only a conservative president could have established relations with the Chinese Communists, arguably only a Democratic president could start a new war in the Muslim world, cut Social Security, etc. – and the picture is far more muddled than many like to depict it as being.
I’m not at all suggesting that a war with Iran would be more likely with Obama than with Romney. There are ample, reasonable grounds for concluding the opposite, including the fact that Obama has – whatever his motives – rather clearly served as some form of impediment against an Israeli attack.
But the point is that this is far from certain. Just as Obama was able to achieve more than Bush ever dreamed of achieving in terms of transforming extremist civil liberties theories into bipartisan consensus, the case could be made that Obama would be a more effective instrument in bringing about these policies than Romney would be, and would certainly unite the country more potently behind them, even if he is less committed to them rhetorically or even in substance than Romney the candidate claims to be.”
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 7:58 utc | 37
SF… Ya want some empirical data…?
NOAA: State of the Climate- Global Highlights
The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). Records began in 1880.
The globally-averaged land surface temperature for September 2012 was the third warmest September on record, at 1.02°C (1.84°F) above average. The globally-averaged ocean surface temperature tied with 1997 as the second warmest September on record, at 0.54°C (0.97°F) above average.
The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–September 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average.
Any questions…?
babbling about ostriches doesn’t do anything to make you look like you have any understanding at all of anything discussed here on the subject of the proven existence of empirical observational data demonstrating a discernible lack of an upward trend in Global (nb: NOT GERMAN) temperature anomalies (the metric used to demonstrate GW) over the last 16yrs
BUT here is a graph of Temperature anomalies for Germany, since you seem to think Germany is representative of the Globe – http://i48.tinypic.com/2h833og.jpg
Anyone with a working pair of eyeballs can clearly see a downward trend in temp anomalies since 1999 – which seems to contradict whatever point you think you’re making in regard to Germany
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 8:13 utc | 39
And NOAA did note…
With warm temperatures during the first half of the month transitioning to cooler temperatures brought about by a strong low pressure system, the average September temperature across the United Kingdom was 0.7°C (1.3°F) below the 1981–2010 average. This marks the coolest September for the region since 1994, according to the UK Met Office.
SF… Ya want some empirical data…?
Got me own already, courtesy of the UK MET Office, and it clearly shows that there has been no Global warming of any significance for the last 16yrs.
What you have posted does not address that proven 16yr stall in Global Warming, so it in no way disproves anything I have said so far.
Perhaps you’d like to actually address what was stated, that:
“There has been no warming of any significance of the last 16yrs”
Like several here you seem to have a problem understanding what that statement actually means
any questions
nope
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 8:21 utc | 41
@40 – still irrelevant in relation to the statements that
“There has been no significant Global warming for the last 16yrs”
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 8:24 utc | 42
SF @ 41 Did you actually read what I just cited…?
…The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). Records began in 1880.
yes I read it – and more importantly I completely understood it’s meaning – it in no way contradicts the statement that the has been no significant warming for the last 16yrs
This statement has been [very reluctantly, but rather definitively] confirmed by the UK MET Office, the org that produced the data upon which the claim is based.
A statement relating to 1/12th of a year, irrespective of the number of other 1/12ths of a year one compares it to, does not in anyway contradict or disprove the following statement
“There has been no Global Warming of any significance for the last 16yrs.”
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 8:42 utc | 44
@ 40
The dataset upon which the UK MET based it’s report, and upon which Mr Rose based his MET-Office-confirmed claims, is a GLOBAL dataset, NOT a local/regional one relating to the UK alone.
So once again, your statement is irrelevant to anything I have stated here on the subject
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 8:50 utc | 45
“There has been no Global Warming of any significance for the last 16yrs.” You’re right…In the UK…! Not globally…! 8-(
Global Warming is not what people should be focusing on – it is one scenario of a much larger problem, which is man-made climate change…
Or the fact that most scientific researchers in the field believe that the wiping out 27,000 to 30,000 species per year (current levels but steadily increasing); destroying over 50% of the world’s natural habitats & continueing the practice at increasing levels; dumping billions of tons of non-biodegradable waste, chemicals & gasses that do not occur naturally into the ecosystem; & drastically altering the worlds land & waterways will have a major effect on weather patterns.
Global warming is one likely consequence, but global weirding is probably the more accurate label – fires & heat waves in areas that haven’t seen anything like it over a thousand years while in the opposite side of the work ice & torrential rain in areas that haven’t seen anything like it since they started recording data. Hurricanes in places that haven’t had hurricanes in hundreds of years while torrential rains, floods & massive fires sweep places that rarely have them, or not in this magnitude.
All of this increasing simultaneously, & predictive models only useful in the broadest sense – Bad & likely to get worse…
Posted by: KenM | Oct 23 2012 8:57 utc | 47
you really should slow down and read what I have posted.
You really don’t appear to taking even the most minimal effort to understand anything I have said
“You’re right…In the UK…! Not globally…! 8-(“
No – not in the UK: GLOBALLY
The dataset in question is the HADCRUT4 dataset, it is produced by Prof Phil Jones of the Hadley Climate Research Centre based in the University of East Anglia in the UK. This was the organisation that was involved in the CLimate-gate email leak.
It is THE major dataset of combined land and sea temperature anomalies and is used as a reference by just about everyone that wishes to discuss GLOBAL temperatures
GLOBAL – not LOCAL, capice?
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 8:59 utc | 48
sorry Ken but you appear to be the victim of the Global Warmists propaganda efforts
There has been no discernible increase in either “weird” weather or “extreme” weather events – irrespective of what people like Weepy Bill McKibben would have you believe
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 9:02 utc | 49
Ken @47 Global weirding is great term, like the Arcticane that happened this Summer…!
Yes – when the Global Warmists realised that over the last 16yrs there was no Global Warming of any significance then someone went out and invented a new completely meaningless term unrelated to Warming, so that they could shift the Goal Posts when others pointed out, using the HADCRUT4 GLOBAL dataset, that there was no GLOBAL warming for the last 16yrs
it’s called Bait and Switch, and is generally considered to be a sign that the bait-and-switchers know damn well that there has been no Global Warming of any significance over the last 16yrs and are trying to distract people from that [now solidly confirmed] fact
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 9:12 utc | 52
@51 – you seem to have a problem understanding that everything I have said is based on the HADCRUT4 dataset of GLOBAL temperature.
Have you actually even bothered to read the original article by Mr Rose? You really should you know, that way you’d might actually begin to understand what the conversation is about.
Simply stating something about it all being related to the UK is clearly contradicted by the fact that the article by Mr Rose, and everything I have said here concerning it, discusses the HADCRUT4 GLOBAL temp anomaly dataset and not some imaginary UK dataset that you just made up
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 9:17 utc | 53
Please pull your head out of the sand, SF…! There’s more than the HadCRUT4…
We have also updated both the global surface temperature and Arctic sea ice Escalators. The surface temperature Escalator had previously used Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) data; however, BEST is a land-only temperature dataset. Therefore, the new temperature Escalator uses an average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface tempererature anomalies from January 1970 through August 2012.
sf, are you actually reading the websites you quote as support for your argument?
This from the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets FAQ page
“Q: Was 2010 (or 1998 or 2005) the warmest year on record?
A: The short answer is, maybe. It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe. However, it is possible to quantify the accuracy with which we can measure the global temperature and that forms an important part of the creation of the HadCRUT4 data set. The accuracy with which we can measure the global average temperature of 2010 is around one tenth of a degree Celsius. The difference between the median estimates for 1998 and 2010 is around one hundredth of a degree, which is much less than the accuracy with which either value can be calculated. This means that we can’t know for certain – based on this information alone – which was warmer. However, the difference between 2010 and 1989 is around four tenths of a degree, so we can say with a good deal of confidence that 2010 was warmer than 1989, or indeed any year prior to 1996.”
But of course, KenNM is right, global warming is only part of the desasters arising from man made changes in nature.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 9:31 utc | 55
@54 – absolute nonsense – HADCRUT dataset collection is one of the most comprehensive and most referenced datasets for temperature in the world.
IIf you knew anything at all about the subject you’d know that – there are 4 main Global datasets used by professional people that work with temperature data.
They are
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre (HADCRU)
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data., –
all have problems/biases inherent in them, all widely known and discussed in the Climate Science community, but HADCRUT is acknowledged by people that actually know what they are talking about at the most comprehensive and reliable of all of them.
This “escalator” thingy you are referring to is an invention of the propagandist fools at SKS and is virtually unheard of in the world of Climate Science – the propagandists at Sks invented it because they didn’t like the fact that the other datasets do not confirm the bullshit they want to peddle so they invented one that did. Sks is run by a Web designer, not a scientist of any sort.
I challenge you to provide evidence that this laughable output of SkS is used as a reference by any serious scientist or professional in and serious credible published scientific work.
I already know you won’t find any
You really really don’t know what you are talking about.
The fact that you’re reduced to hiding behind SkS’s laughable and completely transparent attempt at denying the reality of the lack of Global warming for the last 16yrs, is rather embarrassing to be honest
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 9:43 utc | 56
you lot really haven’t got a clue what you are talking about – simply saying something like “year x is warmer than year y” is proof of nothing other than that one year is warmer than another
you lot really are clueless in this matter.
There’s no point in continuing to discuss this with you since you all clearly have no idea what most of the stuff you are talking about actually means, nor how it relates to the last 16yr trend in Global Temperature anomalies.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 9:50 utc | 57
Johnboy (9) and scottindallas (10), the main points of my post in 8, which I forwarded verbatim because its sense eluded me yet it seemed important, were (i) that the Obamas may have given up their law licenses because otherwise they would have faced charges about something, (ii) that there has been, somewhere, some misrepresentation of his actual status as a professor of constitutional law which seems supported by his statements that indicate ignorance of it. Thank you for your comments and my new perspective! I see that post now as an attempt to smear them which most likely won’t fly because – hey – if an actor can become president anything is possible! Moreover, it would need masses of money to finance and advertise. scottindallas, I spend some of my time in Texas and enjoy knowing that you are there (most likely)! Your mention of the 14th amendment was incisive!
Posted by: lambent1 | Oct 23 2012 10:05 utc | 58
@55 – you proclaimed earlier the Germany’s climate showed clear evidence of Warming, and that this somehow ‘proved’ that there has been clearly discernible Global Warming over the last 16yrs.
That statement of yours would still be absolute nonsense even if it were true that Germany’s climate showed clear Warming over the last 16yrs (which it doesn’t) because the climate in Germany is NOT a proxy for Global Temperature – this shows that you really don’t kniow what you are talking about.
I posted a graph disproving your earlier nonsense.
You ignored it completely.
care to address it now, or are you going to keep waffling on about irrelevant comparisons?
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:09 utc | 59
the astounding, and embarrassing to read, thing is that you lot don’t even seem to understand why all these irrelevant cut&paste jobs that you keep posting are irrelevant.
That’s what happens I guess when you don’t really understand terms such as “trend”, “significant” (or even “16yrs”) mean in relation to Global, or even local, temperature anomalies
Do you guys even know what “temperature anomaly” refers to?
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:25 utc | 60
Some real data…
Nasa’s GISS… Research Links Extreme Summer Heat Events to Global Warming
NCDC… September 2012 Global Temperature Ties for Warmest September on Record
And, I’m certainly far more worried about the Methane than the CO2…
No wonder NOAA wanted to waffle on about September. That way they could distract from :
U.S. Remains In Cooling Trend Per The New June NOAA Data: -3.5°F/Century
Much to the galactic chagrin of global warming alarmists and their collaborators at the NY Times and Washington Post, a major peer reviewed study by an avowed alarmist found no global warming since 1998. This finding confirms what the skeptics have been stating over the last 5 years.
US Temps June 2011 When looking at the temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 2011. Per the latest (up to 2011) NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending April was the 4th coldest June-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, June 2011 was 1.6 degrees below the hottest June ever (June 1933). See chart here.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.5°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending June 2011 (July 1, 2001 thru June 30, 2011), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 13.0°F per century rate – again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:33 utc | 62
as posted above
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets FAQ page:
“The difference between 2010 and 1989 is around four tenths of a degree, so we can say with a good deal of confidence that 2010 was warmer than 1989, or indeed any year prior to 1996”
empiric global data proving global warming yes or no?
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 10:36 utc | 63
“Some real data…”
anyone claiming that HADCRUT4 is not “real Data” is just making a fool of themselves
“And, I’m certainly far more worried about the Methane than the CO2…”
Well you may be, but it’s still irrelevant – unfortunately for you and your arguments virtually the whole of the AGW thesis relies on CO2 being the primary Climate driver.
If you suddenly want to now switch to claiming that methane is the primary climate driver then the whole of the AGW thesis falls flat on it’s face. And doing so without first acknowledging that really makes it seem as if you are just desperately grasping at straws.
Trying to move the goal posts now just looks like more of the usual Bait&Switch that AGW propagandists have become so adept at recently, once they realised that there was a 16yr stretch of no significant Global Warming
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:40 utc | 64
Unfortunately for you and your new methane fixation, all the Models are preprogrammed with CO2 as the primary Climate driver.
And the majority of the AGW hypothesis is Dependant on the output of the models.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:43 utc | 65
empiric global data proving global warming yes or no?
absolutely not – the fact that you seem to think so proves that you don’t know what you are talking about
and essentially just another bait and switch attempt from you to distract from the fact that you are refusing to acknowledge that you were wrong when you earlier claimed that Germany had experience a Warming Climate since 99
Now it’s your turn to answer some questions:
Germany: Cooling or warming since 99?
Germany: a proxy for Global Climate?
My guess is you’ll just ignore those very relevant questions, and reply with some ridiculous & completely irrelevent non-sequitur,
cos yer nothing if not predictable.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:50 utc | 66
SF read the HadCRUT4’s own trend lines…! It ain’t going down…! *gah*
as stated earlier – at no point have I stated that “there has been no Global Warming”
I clearly stated, several times now, that “There has been no significant Global Warming for the last 16yrs”
You seem to have a distinct inability to understand that fairly easily understood statement
You keep trying to pretend that I said something else, which is quite frankly extremely dishonest.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 10:56 utc | 68
SF
when will it be significant for you then, in 10 years, in 20 years, in 50 years, in a 100 years?
plus or minus 32 Fahrenheit or 0 Celsius makes the difference between ice or no ice, so that would be significant, yes or no?
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 11:15 utc | 69
“SF read the HadCRUT4’s own trend lines…! It ain’t going down…! *gah* “
I don’t mean to be offensive but it’s clear you know sweet fuck all very little about this subject
There are NO “TREND lines” in those graphs – none – nada – zero – gar nichts – Those graphs are not of “Trend”. Those graphs do not graph what you appear to think they graph.
Not only that, they are also definitely not of sufficient resolution to discern anything meaningful regarding the last 16yrs, but there’s no trend graphed there at all
The top part of each graph represents both HADCRUT3 (in red) and HADCRUT4 (in blue) – you can’t really discern the blue because the red is, for the most part, sitting right on top of it
They are graphs of the DIFFERENCES between the 2 datasets
It’s even shown in the legend on the left hand side of the lower section of each graph, if you’d bothered to read it – it clearly states “Temperature Difference” and shows the difference between the older HADCRUT3 dataset and the new HADCRUT4 dataset
That’s all they show.. And as I said already — there are no TRENDs graphed there – so you clearly haven’t got a clue what you are looking at.
And as I said, even if there were trend lines graphed there (which there aren’t) the graphs are at too low a resolution for you to make any statement regarding trend for the last 16yrs
But anyway you still don’t understand what is being argued here – the claim is that the has been no INCREASE in Global Warming over the stated time-period, NOT that there has been a DECREASE over that time period. And much as you lot would like to pretend otherwise, the claim is still “There is no significant Global Warming over the last 16yrs” and not your preferred brand spanking new claim “there has been a DECLINE in GW over 16yrs” – I never made any such claim regarding GW so I do not know why you are now trying to pretend I did.
You lot seem to insist on creating ridiculous strawmen you can argue against. I guess it must be because you can’t argue against the actual claim being made – which isn’t surprising given that none of you seem to know what you are talking about
The CO2/AGW Hypothesis states that for a given rise in CO2 over a time period there will be a corresponding rise in Temperature.
But for the last 16yrs there has been NO significant rise in Global Temp despite the significant change in CO2 over that same time period. the longer this lack of significant warming continues the more discredited the AGW hypothesis becomes.
Phil Jones stated that 15yrs was a very significant time frame and that the theories would need to be completely re-examined IF that occurred – well it HAS occurred – we now have 16yrs of stalling in Global Warming
Ben Santer, a leading Climate Modeler and strong proponent of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis, claimed that 17 yrs was the golden number – well that is just one year away, so if the current trend continues the Mr Santer will have to eat some very humble pie indeed.
This lack of significant GW for 16yrs has greatly increased the likelihood that something other than CO2 is responsible for any previous rise in Global Temp – and consequently greatly increase the likelihood that something other than Human activity is responsible for Temp rise.
This is a major crisis for the AGW hypothesis, hence the shenanigans we see at Sks where the have now invented a whole new dataset, which they control and could modify at will, to continue to pimp their fave propaganda without looking like complete morons
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 11:45 utc | 70
@ 69
predictable as ever – you have of course ignored the questions I asked you earlier, as I stated you would
which just shows that you really are a very dishonest and duplicitious person
when will it be significant for you then, in 10 years, in 20 years, in 50 years, in a 100 years?
plus or minus 32 Fahrenheit or 0 Celsius makes the difference between ice or no ice, so that would be significant, yes or no?
Why do you keep asking completely meaningless questions, when you don’t understand the first thing relating to this subject
The quote above is impossible for me to parse – it really just looks like an attempt by you to pretend you have some understanding of something which you clearly don’t understand at all.
When are you going to address those questions I asked you earlier? Probably never knowing you
Virtually every statement by you in this thread is complete and utter meaningless drivel in terms of climate science – you really haven’t got even the most basic grasp of anything relevant to this topic – talking to you is a complete waste of time, sticking needles in ones eyeballs would be more productive and less painful tbh
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 11:56 utc | 71
asswipe SF… … The statistics show that the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming, according to lead author James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
“This summer people are seeing extreme heat and agricultural impacts,” Hansen says. “We’re asserting that this is causally connected to global warming, and in this paper we present the scientific evidence for that.”
Hansen and colleagues analyzed mean summer temperatures since 1951 and showed that the odds have increased in recent decades for what they define as “hot,” “very hot” and “extremely hot” summers.
The researchers detailed how “extremely hot” summers are becoming far more routine. “Extremely hot” is defined as a mean summer temperature experienced by less than one percent of Earth’s land area between 1951 and 1980, the base period for this study. {…}
Hansen and colleagues found that a bell curve was a good fit to summertime temperature anomalies for the base period of relatively stable climate from 1951 to 1980. Mean temperature is centered at the top of the bell curve. Decreasing in frequency to the left of center are “cold,” “very cold” and “extremely cold” events. Decreasing in frequency to the right of center are “hot,” “very hot” and “extremely hot” events.
Plotting bell curves for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the team noticed the entire curve shifted to the right, meaning that more hot events are the new normal. The curve also flattened and widened, indicating a wider range of variability. Specifically, an average of 75 percent of land area across Earth experienced summers in the “hot” category during the past decade, compared to only 33 percent during the 1951 to 1980 base period. Widening of the curve also led to the designation of the new category of outlier events labeled “extremely hot,” which were almost nonexistent in the base period.
Hansen says this summer is shaping up to fall into the new extreme category. “Such anomalies were infrequent in the climate prior to the warming of the past 30 years, so statistics let us say with a high degree of confidence that we would not have had such an extreme anomaly this summer in the absence of global warming,” he says.
sf – on the topic of the last 16 years – see above quote
“The accuracy with which we can measure the global average temperature of 2010 is around one tenth of a degree Celsius. The difference between the median estimates for 1998 and 2010 is around one hundredth of a degree, which is much less than the accuracy with which either value can be calculated. This means that we can’t know for certain – based on this information alone – which was warmer.”
let me sum it up for you – measured differences are within the margin of error –
– on the last 17 to 30 years –
“The difference between 2010 and 1989 is around four tenths of a degree, so we can say with a good deal of confidence that 2010 was warmer than 1989, or indeed any year prior to 1996”
let me sum it up for you – measured differences for that time period are outside of the margin of error
let me add again – ice melts in any temperature above 32 Fahrenheit or 0 Celsius
I can live with global warming in Germany enjoying red wine and tropical fruits. There are parts of the world that will be turned into a desert.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 12:36 utc | 73
dear Tuttle – for a guy that is unable to read and interpret a simple graph from HadCRU you’re putting an awful lot of time and effort into supporting a theory about which you obviously haven’t got foggiest notion
To me that’s very strange behaviour
I honestly can’t fathom why someone would invest so much emotional energy into defending something that they clearly do not understand – and may not even possess the means to ever understand
You clearly haven’t got the slightest notion what the statistical terms such as “significant” “trend” “temp anomaly” mean when used in relation to Climate data.
Either go and learn the basics or give up – because you’re clearly well out of your comfort-zonee when discussing this subject with anyone that possesses even a minute amount of knowledge on this subject.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 12:42 utc | 74
to the global warming advocates, I don’t think you understand what science is. It’s a shot in the dark, and creating models that can predict accurately the future is the sole test. The fact is that every climate model is wrong. That means we don’t fully understand the climate, and what affects it. The climate “scientists” admit that their models are wrong. They tend to focus on the extremes, and on the worst affects and never seem to mention mitigating factors, cause they’re alarmists, not scientists.
Global warming and “Green” are marketing slogans. We should never speak of them. Rather, we’d be better served focusing on conservation, efficiency and preservation. I’m an organic gardener by trade and am intimately familiar with the false claims, and vast data sets that are ignored. (for instance, corn gluten is the favorite nitrogen source for organic gardeners, despite the fact that corn is grown using petro fertilizers. few things are as black and white as you and climate activists paint them. You’d be wise to step back and take a more reflective approach.
And, Germany has grown wine for centuries. The average temperatures were warmer for 500 of the last 2000 years, despite a much smaller CO2 output. There are many cyclical factors affecting average global temps, and we are just beginning to understand them. Few sciences have been right about anything inside of the first century of their creation. You’d do well to study the “philosophy of science” you’d be smarter, and you’d understand the logical fallacies that the scientific method is prone to absorb (affirming the consequent) Science doesn’t prove much anything, rather it tells you “no”, or “maybe”
Posted by: scottindallas | Oct 23 2012 14:03 utc | 76
I’m strongly favouring Romney.
Yes, he is incompetent, a zionist puppet, and a bankster. Yet I’m favouring him. For one simple reason:
Romney will push the usa over the edge faster than Obama could.
Whatever hurts or, even better, crushes the usa is good for the world.
(And, yes, I’m sorry for the handful of people with brains – like the guy making this very web-site – they’ve got in the usa.)
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Oct 23 2012 14:04 utc | 77
@b;
Tariq Ali in a recent article published in counterpunch (sept 2012) says:
“There were doubts about Houla, which at that time there were. No longer. It’s now clear that the regime was responsible.”
Is there some new evidence -that I am not aware of- which refutes the report by FAZ and puts the blame of the massacre on the government?
Do you know what Tariq Ali is talking about?
Posted by: pirouz_2 | Oct 23 2012 14:05 utc | 78
A very good critique about the recent happenings in Libya and the presedential debate by an extremely competent Black American. Watch it.
[youtube=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RglKUmx0fk”]
@78 use Google as your friend to find out where Tariq Ali earns most of his money, then you will know why he produces rubbish recently. No different then Seymour of Lenin Tomb.
Posted by: hans | Oct 23 2012 14:15 utc | 79
@73
I already told you that everything you’ve just said is completely irrelevant to the matter under discussion
All you have done is repeat that 2010 was warmer than 1998 – and then thrown in some mumbo jombo regarding error margins to make it look “sciency” – this tells us absolutely nothing at all about what happened between 1998 and 2010 – it tells us only that there appears to be a strong case for saying that 2010 was hotter than 1998 – SO WHAT?
1934 was hotter than 2010, before James Hanson decided to cheat by subtracting an arbitary amount from the 1934 temp value so as to make 2010 appear to hotter than 1934, by a margin of approx o.o1 deg Celcius. But again this would tell us absolutely nothing at all about temp anomaly trends between 1934 and 2010 – the fact that you seem to think it would is testament to your complete lack of knowledge regarding such figures are arrived at.
So congratulations – once again, for about the 10th time in this conversation you have demonstrated complete ignorance of the subject under discussion
Comparing individual years in the manner you are doing gains you absolutely ZERO info on any trend that may exist from 1998 onward – nothing at all – zero, nada etc etc.
I really don’t know why you keep repeating this pointless excersize.
All it does is demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing at all about how trends are calculated for Temperature Anomalies against a given period of time
You are discussing 2 individual years and comparing them – which tells us absoultely nothing at all bout what went on in between
The HadCRUT4 series DOES tell us something about what went on between 1998 and 2010 (or 2011) – and unlike you the people that compiled it actually DO know what they are talking about since it is actually compiled by people that know something about the subject matter and it clearly shows that there was no Global Warming worth mentioning, from 97 onwards – a time-period of 16yrs
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 14:16 utc | 80
Wow….lots of empirical data to wade through. Can somebody tell me what this discussion is really about? IMO it’s all about the effects of overpopulation on the planet but I’ll listen to other theories.
Posted by: dh | Oct 23 2012 14:57 utc | 81
scottindallas, the point was “good red wine”, we used to import that from Italy, France, Spain and Portugal. Germany always had good white wine (though there was a tendency to use sugar to help – no need now).
I do wonder where you get those data:
“The average temperatures were warmer for 500 of the last 2000 years, despite a much smaller CO2 output.”, as obviously the crux of “proving” anything is that scientific global climate data measurement does not reach back much more than 30 years.
I found this reconstruction of the “Medieval Warmth Period” in Wikipedia and it tells you that, indeed we live in the hottest time ever.
Empirical data collected after the effect will be pretty useless anyway as presumably climate change cannot be reverted. So yes you need scientific models. And yes, people landed on the moon, and it was science that got them there, and there was no empirical data how to do it. And yes Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct though devoid of empirical data.
Green business lobbyists are backed by a lot less money i.e. power than car lobbyists and the oil industry. So I tend to believe scientists’ warnings of global warming – they are not where the money is.
I agree that climate change is complex and a lot of factors contribute. That is no reason to avoid it the best we can. It does have the potential to make a large part of the world unlivable.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 15:09 utc | 82
@ 81
Scotts post @ 76 is as good and concise a read as you’ll get in this thread on the contentious matter of CO2 and AGW
Everything he said about the Climate Models and CO2 is verifiable and easily enough understood for anyone with an interest and an open mind
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 15:11 utc | 83
more on climate change and the wine industry – New York Times
and this here is Stanford University:
Global warming could significantly alter the U.S. premium wine industry within 30 years, say Stanford scientists
“The amount of high-value Northern California land suitable for growing premium wine grapes could be cut in half by 2040 because of global warming, the researchers say. Their findings are based on the conservative assumption that average global temperatures will rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during that time.”
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 15:21 utc | 84
Global warming could (equally it may not) significantly alter the U.S. premium wine industry within 30 years, say Stanford scientists
“The amount of high-value Northern California land suitable for growing premium wine grapes could (equally it may not) be cut in half by 2040 because of global warming, the researchers say. Their findings are based on the conservative assumption [we know what they say about “assume”] that average global temperatures will rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during that time.”
That ain’t “Science” – it’s a bunch of “could”s based entirely on an unreliable “assumption” . . . an “assumption” which is currently looking decidedly off-the-mark due to the 16yr lack of any discernible increase in Global Warming.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 15:49 utc | 85
sf – do you refuse vaccinations or any medicine because you could but might not fall ill or die?
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 15:58 utc | 86
I found this reconstruction of the “Medieval Warmth Period” in Wikipedia and it tells you that, indeed we live in the hottest time ever.
Climate subjects at Wikipedia have been subject to the iron grip of a bunch of Climate hysterics for several years, led by an individual known as William Connelly.
Mr Connelley was banned a while back because it was deemed by a group of Wiki peers that he was unable to discuss the subject with out major bias and behaved in a throughly unethical manner. One of his self-proclaimed triumphs was to take a hatchet to the Middle Warming Period. He and his Climate mob broke every rule in the Wiki play-book in order to sabotage articles related to the Medieval Warming Period – the Mediaval Warming Period was well-established and acknowledged by virtually everyone that knows anything about it, long before Mr Connelley and his climate cabal targeted it for “revision” – and it is still considered, by just about everyone BUT Mr Connelley and his unethical climate cabal, as being warmer than the present era.
Only the Climate Scientists and the alarmist supporters claim that the present time is warmer than the MWP – the vast majority of geo-physical and earth scientists, people that actually go into the field and study things, as opposed to sitting in their offices and playing with computerised Models and dodgy statistical methods, like so called Climate “Scientists” do, consider the MWP to have been several degrees warmer than the present time
Wikipedia is about as trustworhty reliable on this subject as a report on the Syrina Gov’t would be from a Syrian NATO-fnded “activist/terrorist”, and Connelley’s unethical Climate Cabal still rules the roost @ Wiki, despite his banning
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 16:05 utc | 87
I don’t know a thing about the science of global warming but I’m always EXTREMELY suspicious whenever I’m told that there is a serious threat (terrorism, climate change, etc.) that can only by confronted by granting world governments enormous power over the rest of us.
Posted by: Lysander | Oct 23 2012 16:10 utc | 88
Lawrence Solomon has an interesting column in the National Post on William Connolley’s climategatekeeping role at Wikipedia. See also an article last year.
Connolley was one of the nine realclimate founders, but posted little at realclimate. This has notoriously not been the case at Wikipedia. Solomon reports that Connolley “created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles” and that Connolley was granted a senior editorial and administrative status at Wikipedia that enabled him to delete “over 500 articles” and “barred” more than 2000 Wikipedia contributors who “ran afoul of him”.
Particular areas of interest for Connolley were the Hockey Stick debate e.g. here,
Check it out
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 16:12 utc | 89
These guys are worse than Zionists, when it comes to their unethical gate-keeping behaviour at Wikipedia
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 16:14 utc | 90
@81, I disagree. Overpopulation isn’t the problem per se; it’s the inability to deal with That Which Does Not Generate A Profit: old people, garbage, sick people, veterans, infants, CO2 etc.
Posted by: ruralito | Oct 23 2012 16:50 utc | 91
Hey SF, Somebody asked you a good question @86.
“sf – do you refuse vaccinations or any medicine because you could but might not fall ill or die?”
A good question. Do you believe in the precautionary principle? For example, “I’m not gonna jump off a bridge today because I may seriously harm or even kill myself”. I might not but I don’t want to find out the hard way.
Even if you forget about Climate Change, there are a great many positive benefits to be gained from reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption of resources. If we exceed the carrying capacity of our eco-system hundreds of millions will die. Or do you think not?
But back to climate change and the precautionary principle. I would be very happy to find out in, say, 30 years time that we had taken precautions as race, mistakenly. Better than doing nothing and finding out AGW was real all along.
Posted by: billyboy | Oct 23 2012 16:55 utc | 92
@86, this is the right attitude when it comes to global warming(or cooling, for that matter): erring on the side of caution. If we get it wrong there is no starting over again.
Posted by: ruralito | Oct 23 2012 16:56 utc | 93
@92 personally I consider it a really pointless question, but typical of him. thus I ignored it – add to that he is unwilling to answer even the simplest question regarding any of his statements so far, which again is typical of him
For example, “I’m not gonna jump off a bridge today because I may seriously harm or even kill myself”. I might not but I don’t want to find out the hard way.
personally I find pseudo-logic such as that to be really really silly and have noticed that such statements are generally posed by people that know next to nothing about the subject. In my experience such statements are generally used to disguise the fact they they know nothing about the subject.
And I have made no statements regarding the inadvisability or advisability of continued use of fossil fuel – it’s a complete red-herring in my opinion because I’ve seen little no evidence that CO2 has the major effect on Temperature that has been claimed by the Climate hysterics – I’ve seen the opposite in fact – the 16yr lack of Warming is actually strong evidence in favour of the notion that CO2 probably does NOT have the major effect on Temp that the Hysterics have claimed, and I consider such pseudo-logic to be a sign of susceptibility to such hysteria.
” If we exceed the carrying capacity of our eco-system hundreds of millions will die. “
I’m curious: where do you get your notions regarding ‘carrying-capacity’ – I’m not doubting that such a thing may exist but I’m skeptical of anyone that claims to know what the magnitude of such a figure might be. I have also noticed that the carrying capacity talking point seems to have originated with rich white pro-eugenicists decades ago.
The quickest and provably most effective way to reduce population (barring mass genocide of course) is to raise the living-standards of those that tend to have the largest families – I see absolutely no effort to achieve that – in fact I see the exact opposite
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 17:21 utc | 94
a logical application of the precautionary principle would be to stop panicking and over-reacting to the hysteria generated by he Climate Mafia – these people have been fed billions in grants for so=called research and for Climate model construction – so far, 30 years down the line and billions of dollar down the drain, and these people haven’t managed to correctly predict Jack-shit.
There isn’t so much as one Climate model in existence that can remotely approximate regional conditions
The precautionary principle would IMO mean exercising extreme caution when listening to anything these utter failures have to say about anything
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 17:27 utc | 95
more on German wine – from the Research Institute at Geisenheim in the Rheingau via the economist – yes, climate change is already here
“Mr Schultz, who has written several papers on the subject, notes that the Geisenheim vines are developing shoots seven days earlier, blossoming ten days earlier and starting to ripen 12 days earlier than the 40-year average; they are especially affected by the warmer nights. “Riesling is very sensitive to the soil and the climate,” echoes Ernst Büscher of the German Wine Institute, across the river in Mainz. Whether the growers can hold their own against upstarts in Canada and points north depends on how far the climate trend continues.”
Posted by: somebody | Oct 23 2012 17:34 utc | 96
This whole conversation started because several individuals here completely refuse to accept what the HADCRU data clearly shows – a 16yr long lack of any meaningful Warming, during a period where CO2 levels have risen significantly.
According to both the CO2/AGW hypothesis and the ALL dodgy Climate models in existence, such an event should never have occurred.
When this very salient fact is pointed out to these people they go into complete lock-down mode, closing their minds completely, and start spamming with whatever is the first thing they find on Google that appears to support the previous propaganda they have been exposed to. Their closed mindedness on this subject is surpassed only by their lack of knowledge of even the basics required to understand the subject.
A more perfect example of “climate denial” would be hard to find
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 17:43 utc | 97
SF you should not be discussing environmental issues if you don’t understand the concept of carrying capacity. It’s not a notion, it’s very basic ecological principle. The earth is an eco system. Capice?
Dismissing the precautionary principle is a head in the sand attitude.
I did not claim to know the carrying capacity of the planet – there are organisations that have estimated it though.
You try to dismiss anyone who has disagreed with you as ill informed or somehow lacking the insight you imply you posess, yet you seem not to understand some science basics. You do understand that natural resources can be depleted don’t you.
You do understand that burning fossil fuels are polluting dont you. Theres plenty of “empirical” evidence for that.
You certainly don’t appear to know the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change. Perhaps Climate Change is to ambiguous for you, whereas Global warming is nice and clear and therefore easier to dismiss.
Still, at least I will be able to say I took precautions, and in the event that you are right and I am wrong, well that’s even better.
Posted by: billyboy | Oct 23 2012 17:53 utc | 98
“SF you should not be discussing environmental issues if you don’t understand the concept of carrying capacity. It’s not a notion, it’s very basic ecological principle. The earth is an eco system. Capice?
firstly the Climate is NOT equal to “Environment” – the two words are NOT interchangeable,
secondly you asked me a question I gave you an answer – so your scolding reply is just rude and boorish
thirdly I completely understand the notion of carrying capacity, better than you by the looks of it- I asked you to explain to me how one might go about quantifying that. The very notion of carrying capacity implies that there is an “optimum” and a “maximum” – despite your pose as some sort of informed person when it comes to this notion of carrying capacity you are obviously completely unable to articulate a method for quantifying these and appear to be trying to cover that up by attacking me.
So: once again – what would the max figure be – and how did you go about obtaining this figure.
Or are you just taking wild stabs in the dark. cos that’s what it looks like.
Posted by: SF | Oct 23 2012 18:33 utc | 99
SF, what’s so hard to understand? Things get used up. They break. They need to be fixed. Cars, environments.
Posted by: ruralito | Oct 23 2012 18:33 utc | 100