Origanalist
10-16-2012, 07:18 AM
“Climate models are very complex,” :rolleyes:
Climate experts from United Kingdom’s National Weather Service told the world that while is was not unusual for pauses in global warming that last for a decade to occur once every eighty years or so, there was no way that one could last for 15 years or more according to their climate model.
Oops. Their mistake, I guess.
Maybe that’s why when the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service updated their data and it showed that global warming has been paused for the last 16 years, they remained mum.
“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week,” write the Daily Mail’s David Rose. “The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”
Rose includes a nice graphic, which we have reprinted below, that shows global temperatures remaining stable since 1997, with a statistically insignificant .03 degree rise on the Celsius scale.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg
Remember last summer- and the summer before that, and the summer before that- when droughts and tornadoes were pinned to global warming by a compliant media? Or when we were told that 100 million people would die in the next twenty minutes, or twenty years- is there really a difference?- because of global warming? And that of course women and children would bear the brunt of those deaths? Or last year when we were told about the wave of Polar Bear cannibals terrorizing the animal kingdom in the great white north?
Um, nevermind.
Looks like the model might be a tad bit off.
“Climate models are very complex,” climate scientists Judith Curry, head of climate science department at Georgia Tech told the Mail in an email, “but they are imperfect and incomplete. In that context the problem is how people interpret the simulations from climate models in view of the uncertainties and imperfections.”
I could have not made a more eloquent point for those of us who love to sport the moniker “Climate Change Denier.”
And yes. I love to be called a Climate Change Denier.
Because it just confirms what we climate skeptics have said all along: Climate Change isn’t based on science, it’s based on faith.
If you want to separate government and religion, don’t worry about the Christians.
Start instead with the climate scientists.
Because it takes a real act of faith to extrapolate tornadoes, drought, floods, pandemics, and flesh-eating zombie Polar Bears to events that aren’t happening in any real, material sense.
Let’s put it this way, more Americans believe in Christ’s Virgin Birth than global warming.
And that makes sense to me.
“It occurs rarely in vertebrates,” reports CBSNews “but examples of it are increasingly being discovered. For instance, the Komodo dragon, the world's largest living lizard, has given birth via parthenogenesis, in which an unfertilized egg develops to maturity. Such virgin births have also been seen in sharks at least twice; in birds such as chickens and turkeys; and in snakes such as pit vipers and boa constrictors.”
Now that’s some science.
Global warming, on the other hand is just pure religion.
Every report the ICC or the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service puts out should start with “Let’s us pray.”
Mind you, I don’t care what another man’s religion is.
I just don’t want to pay for it with my tax dollars, my gas dollars or my energy bill.
Let them take up a collection instead and pay for it the way honest, hard-working religions have to.
Then, when they are done passing the hat, let’s count the faithful again, amen.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/10/16/drought_famine_globalcooling/page/full/
Climate experts from United Kingdom’s National Weather Service told the world that while is was not unusual for pauses in global warming that last for a decade to occur once every eighty years or so, there was no way that one could last for 15 years or more according to their climate model.
Oops. Their mistake, I guess.
Maybe that’s why when the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service updated their data and it showed that global warming has been paused for the last 16 years, they remained mum.
“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week,” write the Daily Mail’s David Rose. “The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”
Rose includes a nice graphic, which we have reprinted below, that shows global temperatures remaining stable since 1997, with a statistically insignificant .03 degree rise on the Celsius scale.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg
Remember last summer- and the summer before that, and the summer before that- when droughts and tornadoes were pinned to global warming by a compliant media? Or when we were told that 100 million people would die in the next twenty minutes, or twenty years- is there really a difference?- because of global warming? And that of course women and children would bear the brunt of those deaths? Or last year when we were told about the wave of Polar Bear cannibals terrorizing the animal kingdom in the great white north?
Um, nevermind.
Looks like the model might be a tad bit off.
“Climate models are very complex,” climate scientists Judith Curry, head of climate science department at Georgia Tech told the Mail in an email, “but they are imperfect and incomplete. In that context the problem is how people interpret the simulations from climate models in view of the uncertainties and imperfections.”
I could have not made a more eloquent point for those of us who love to sport the moniker “Climate Change Denier.”
And yes. I love to be called a Climate Change Denier.
Because it just confirms what we climate skeptics have said all along: Climate Change isn’t based on science, it’s based on faith.
If you want to separate government and religion, don’t worry about the Christians.
Start instead with the climate scientists.
Because it takes a real act of faith to extrapolate tornadoes, drought, floods, pandemics, and flesh-eating zombie Polar Bears to events that aren’t happening in any real, material sense.
Let’s put it this way, more Americans believe in Christ’s Virgin Birth than global warming.
And that makes sense to me.
“It occurs rarely in vertebrates,” reports CBSNews “but examples of it are increasingly being discovered. For instance, the Komodo dragon, the world's largest living lizard, has given birth via parthenogenesis, in which an unfertilized egg develops to maturity. Such virgin births have also been seen in sharks at least twice; in birds such as chickens and turkeys; and in snakes such as pit vipers and boa constrictors.”
Now that’s some science.
Global warming, on the other hand is just pure religion.
Every report the ICC or the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service puts out should start with “Let’s us pray.”
Mind you, I don’t care what another man’s religion is.
I just don’t want to pay for it with my tax dollars, my gas dollars or my energy bill.
Let them take up a collection instead and pay for it the way honest, hard-working religions have to.
Then, when they are done passing the hat, let’s count the faithful again, amen.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/10/16/drought_famine_globalcooling/page/full/