Claim: Last 100 years may be warmest in 120,000 years in the Arctic — ‘but not so fast’
…America’s Deadliest Hurricane And Tornado Both Occurred During The ‘Coldest Years Ever’
…America’s Worst Fire Occurred During One Of The Coldest Years Ever
…Has it come to this?! Climate scientists refuse grant money to study natural climate change! ‘So far, no Nebraska researchers will touch research money that doesn’t have humans-to-blame as a theme’
Via Dr. Roy Spencer:
Nebraska climate scientists’ heads stuck in the topsoil
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/nebraska-climate-scientists-heads-stuck-in-the-topsoil/
After working in this field for a few decades one thing that has been crystal-clear is the obvious bias of climate research funding toward anthropogenic effects and away from natural influences on climate.
So this news story about the Nebraska state legislature wanting to fund a (relatively small, $44,000) study of natural climate cycles might seem like a welcome (albeit small) step in the right direction.
The problem is…so far, no Nebraska researchers will touch research money that doesn’t have humans-to-blame as a theme. According to the article,
“For one thing, “cyclical” isn’t a scientific term, said Barbara Mayes, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.”
Oh, really? Gee, that’s news to me. Maybe “oscillation” is used more, but “cycles” implies pretty much the same thing to scientists, engineers, and mathematicians alike.
I would guess the current funding lopsidedness is currently running at least 100 to 1, humans versus nature. Is that really how the public would like their tax dollars spent?
Here’s the news story:
Omaha.com: State climate change study may [sic] go begging for scientists
NOTE: If you are wondering why I dinged the journalist on grammar, I believe “may” is ambiguous…it could imply ‘permission’ was being sought, rather than what I believe was intended, which was just a ‘possibility’. “Might” would have been a better choice.…
World’s Hottest Temperature Occurred During One Of The Coldest Years Ever
…UN IPCC 1990 Sea Level Predictions Only Missed By A Factor Of Five: ‘The 1990 IPCC Report predicted about 120 mm of sea level rise by the year 2014’
…Supreme Court could derail Obama climate agenda
Supreme Court could derail Obama climate agenda | The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/24/supreme-court-could-derail-obama-climate-agenda/…
Electing McAuliffe will make the weather better, says ad | The Daily Caller
Electing McAuliffe will make the weather better, says ad | The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/electing-mcauliffe-will-make-the-weather-better-says-ad/…
A new record: the most sea ice in Antarctica in 30 years by extent and by volume
A new record: the most sea ice in Antarctica in 30 years by extent and by volume
Translated by Google from this press release in German at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany: Never so much sea ice at Antarctica in the last 30 years In light of global warming, it seems paradoxical that the sea ice cover of the Southern Ocean has covered a larger area in the past month than […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Warmist David Robert Grimes Foams At The Keyboard…Mounting Frustration Now On The Verge Of Anger
Irish Times David Robert Grimes Foams At The Keyboard…Mounting Frustration Now On The Verge Of Anger
David Robert Grimes of the Irish Times latest piece pretty much tells us all we all need to know about the state of mind of climate alarmists nowadays: it’s one of mounting frustration that’s on the verge of exploding anger. Is this what one typically sees from the winning side of a debate? Certainly not.
What we are actually seeing appears to be the tantrum one sees from the losing side that had gone in thinking victory was sure. Like an 8-year old losing a checker game to a brighter 4-year old.
The humiliation is evident.
He writes: “If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers say.” Notice here how Grimes writes “temperature will rise” and not “temperature is rising“. He is telling us to just wait another 40 years. He has to do this because all the models have been dead wrong. And what Grimes fails to understand is that if they are wrong today, then they can’t be used for the future. In fact neither Grimes nor any scientist has a single scrap of data that allows them to predict the future. It’s all scenario and speculation.
Misinterprets the warming stop as bleak
He writes: “The findings are bleak, but not unexpected.” False. The findings are unexpected. Not a single IPCC model got the temperatures for the last fifteen years correct. All overstated the temperature rise. So this is good news and is certainly not “bleak”. Only psychologically abnormal person would not feel a sense of some relief. The stop in temperature rise is unexpected and is thus can be nothing but good news – period.
Obsessive catastrophe wishers
Clearly Grimes comes across as an obsessive and irrational catastrophe-wisher. No data, news, or even therapy, are going to change the mindset of the obsessive alarmist. He seems to have an acute, unexplainable allergy to the bearers of good news, especially from “publications like the Daily Mail, the Wall Street Journal and numerous Murdoch press.” All good news that gets presented absolutely has to be defeated.
Grimes denies real data, embraces model scenarios
Grimes also accuses the skeptics of denialism, claiming they are practicing a “stubborn and persistent refusal to acknowledge what …