RSS Feed
October 12th, 2011 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda 
Watts Up With That?
October 11, 2011
Like what Judith Curry saw recently at NCAR’s seminar, he seems to think it is all about communication.
Part of the problem, he said, was that the climate sceptic lobby employed communications professionals, whereas “scientists are just barely competent at communicating with the public and don’t have the wherewithal to do it.”
Yet sceptics are the ones without any MSM support. So where do they get this idea? Full story here
A few things come to mind that he didn’t cover as other possible reasons skeptics are winning:
1. We don’t hide behind FOIA laws, then circumvent them when we lose. If you’d shared the data when asked, Climategate would never have happened.
2. We don’t rewrite history, either by deletingmorphing commentary like Skepicalscience does, or by creating questionable paleostatistical methods to enable pretending the trees tell us last 900 years were flat without any possible natural variance.
3. We don’t call people on the other side of the debate ugly denigrating names like deniers and flat earthers.
4. We don’t keep trying to link weather patterns/weather events to climate in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Burning issue: Hansen’s evidence that the world is hotting up
Moscow, August 2010
Russia experienced its hottest-ever summer last year – for weeks, a large portion of European Russia was more than 7 °C (12.6 °F) warmer than normal, and a new national record was set of 44 °C (111 °F). Raging forest fires filled Moscow with smoke, forcing the cancellation of air services and obliging people to don face masks.
Jim, get a clue, the Moscow heat wave had NOTHING TO DO with global warming. It was a blocking high weather pattern. NOAA’s own work concludes this:
NOAA finds”climate change” blameless in 2010 Russian heat wave
We mentioned this previously on WUWT, now it is officially peer reviewed and accepted.
NOAA: Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands
Source here
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. And while the scientists could not attribute the intensity of this particular heat wave to climate change, they found that extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades.
So Jim, when you try to tell us that the 2010 Russian heat wave was caused by global warming, people who know better have no choice but to call post normal science BS on you.
Print this page.
4 Responses to “Hansen’s admission – “skeptics are winning””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Posted in 
Tags: 
Proof of CHANGE is not PROOF OF CAUSE.
AGW constantly asserts O2 as cause with NO PROOF.
AGW spends MILLIONS to show change but NOTHING TO SHOW CO2 is the CAUSE.
This is because they KNOW that if they go this way THEY LOSE.
CO2 has a LOGARITHMIC EFFECT, The MORE CO2 there is the LESS effect there is.
AGW IS A LIE
Glen I agree:
Correlation is not causation. I cannot count how many times warmists have demanded that I prove global warming is not occurring, as if this in itself is proof of AGW or man made global warming. Even if the earth is warming, it could be due to many, many other causes or combinations thereof.
There is no direct proof that increased carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming. All the warmists can present as ‘proof’ are nintendo grade computer models that purport to show that the earth’s temperature will increase by x amount of degrees over y period of time. So what? You can input any data you wish into a model and create the outcomes you desire. Garbage in, garbage out. A computer model is no more proof of global warming than the movie Avatar is proof of the existence of Pandora.
Even if the data and assumptions were accurate (and they are not), it is impossible to model all the variables and even if you could, the computing power does not exist. Further, none of the models are capable of handing second order effects or can compute all of the feedback loops in a timely fashion. Proof of this statement is simple: even with the best of computers and software, you can predict weather with a max of 80% accuracy in a period of 5 days. Yet the climate hucksters lie and say they can tell us what will happen in 50 years. Bollocks!
I disagree Glen that they have spend millions trying to prove AGW. These criminals have spent Billions and still cannot prove AGW
I do not know of the logarithmic effects of CO2 and I really do not care since the science is a scam, the small group of scientists behind it are whores and sycophants, pimping for the banksters who will make billions trading carbon credits and governments, who are looking for more reasons to take your money and freedom away.
Over to you Leland…..
Calling all lelands, calling all lelands. Report in. ASAP. You’re way behind the power curve.
I guess noone really knows for certain if there is global warming and if there is what is causing it. A better question to ask might be whether it is good bad or neutral. If bad it doesn’t matter what’s causing it something should be done if it can be done. I have seen of much less costly responses than a war on carbon. That seems extreme and not going to happen without major major suffering, if at all.