OMG...The good old communist paper the Guardian again......The paper that exaggerates and distorts the truth by their own admission.......How can any one trust what they say now.
Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
The skeptics laid out four conditions that must be met for them to accept that climate change isn’t simply a theory: 100 named hurricanes a year, the full evaporation of the Mississippi River, nine-month-long heat waves, and the complete extinction of every animal in the class Reptilia.
NEWS
August 19, 2015
Vol 51 Issue 33
WASHINGTON””Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.
The group of skeptics, who said that the consensus among 97 percent of the scientific community and the documented environmental transformations already underway are simply not proof enough, laid out the precise sequence and magnitude of horrific events””including natural disasters, proliferation of infectious diseases, and resource wars””they would have to witness firsthand before they are swayed.
“For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities””and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”
“The reality is that we’re still experiencing cold, snowy winters, and the entire global population is not currently embarking on cross-continental migrations in search of arable land,” Davis continued. “Until that changes, we cannot be expected to believe climate change is occurring.”
basilio;90974"8 said:Right on cue Noco. Mindless, factless and totally unwilling to actually read a report let alone discuss it.
Tell you what. If you can't actually comment on the article how about just shutting up and stop repeatedly demonstrating to everyone else how clueless you are on CC ? OK
Ironic.
BTW, did you hear what's going on in Californ I A?
Google Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 Plod.
Apparently canned because lo and behold, it contravenes the first amendment. But it is a disgrace that it was ever even drafted.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Former US Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) and later head of the UN Foundation
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” – Former French President Jacques Chirac speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” – Richard Benedick, deputy assistant secretary of state
Ooooerrr now this can't be right now can it?
http://www.bull****exposed.com/global-warming-is-bull****/
They must be using the wrong side of the water intake valve with their mercury thermometers again
And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS. I read that drivel. Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.
What is it with you guys ? You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ? It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?
And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS. I read that drivel. Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.
What is it with you guys ? You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ? It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?
Are you talking about that fake 97% of phony alarmist scientist?
How often does storm surge and king tides wash away beach front houses in Sydney noco?
I can't imagine it happening every year or seasonal climate changing all the time stuff.
The rest of the scientific community? Do tell basilio ....
<SNIP>
So Proffesor Chris Folland DID NOT SAY THIS ??
Dear Mr Battig
*
Thanks for your request. You are about the fifth person to ask me this in the last ten years or more.
*
What you quote a very abbreviated report of*a much longer discussion at least*22 years ago!**-*soon after the 1990 IPCC*report and possibly around the time of the 1992 Supplementary Report. I cannot be sure to which sceptical scientist it was made but it may have been Pat Michaels - and possibly others with him. Please check with Pat. *
*
At that time, the key driver for nations' concern about climate change was indeed mostly*driven by model projections of global warming.* The attached published*letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself*and one of the then*IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators*tried to accurately reflect*the*general view at that time*(1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. *Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s.*This view*was soon to change greatly; notice that the*letter looks forward at*its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations'*policy actions and concerns.
*
The situation is*now very different and has been since about 1995.**Up to*1993, there were no published*detection and attribution studies. The situation had changed*by the 1995 IPCC*report with the first published detection and attribution*studies and since then the many*results of these studies have become the most quoted and influential*aspect of all*the IPCC Reports. Detection and attribution depends critically on observed climate*data as well as climate*models. It had centre stage*of course*in the 2001, 2007 and 2013 IPCC*reports. So*climate data started to move to centre stage*by the mid 1990s and was definitely right there by 2001 when I was a convening lead author of the 2001 Report.*Observed data and climate models*are now*equally important and vital to each other. This was further helped by the fact that in 2001 the first error estimates of observed global mean temperatures were published (I lead the first paper) – much been improved conceptually but not greatly changed quantitatively in recent years - and now available for everywhere location in the world. So great efforts*continue to go on*into improving data by the leading climate scientists of the world using ever more advanced statistics. I, of course, have devoted*considerable*time since 1990 to climate data, uncertainties,*and assessing the*climate changes, and importantly, the variations,*that they show.**
*
You might notice*that some*sceptics have a bad habit of quoting, or going after,*very*out of date stuff, such as the conceptual curve of global temperature back to the Middle Ages*in the 1990 report, as if*climate*science stands still.* Thus another development for which climate data are essential is the relatively new subject of decadal to multidecadal prediction (now in the fifth IPCC Report as a stand alone chapter). I co-authored the first widely quoted decadal prediction paper 2007 in Science. Here I was particularly responsible for the use of observed data methods to test the veracity of the early part of these predictions. Moreover all decadal prediction models have to be initialised with climate data. So decadal forecasting is actually impossible without observed global climate data. *But decadal forecasting did not exist in 1992.
*
Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!. *
*
So climate*data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold! 2014 is very different from 1992!
*
Please feel free to quote the attached published letter in the context of the above remarks in any publication – I encourage you to do this.
*
I hope this helps
*
Chris
*
*
Professor Chris Folland
Research Fellow
Met Office Hadley Centre
FitzRoy* Road Exeter Devon EX1 3 PB
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
*
Hon. Prof. School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia
*
Guest Prof. Faculty of* Science Univ. of Gothenburg Sweden
*
Adjunct Prof.* Dept of* Sustainable Catchments* Univ. of Southern Queensland* Australia
Yes he said it, and at the time it was accurate. The time was 1992. Scientists, including Professor Folland, have since spent more than 20 years gathering and analysing many independent sets of data , which is why more than 95% of practising scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous. 20 years of data collection has also enabled scientists to test and improve climate models, as they continue to do, which is why e.g. continuing to mine and burn coal and gas would be monumentally stupid.
Here's Professor Folland's response to a 2014 inquiry about it from the climate contrarian blog Climate Reality ( https://climateis.com/2014/08/07/pr...ot-basing-our-recommendations-on-the-data-we/
Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!. *
Tambora is the only eruption in modern history to rate a VEI of 7. Global temperatures were an average of five degrees cooler because of this eruption; even in the United States, 1816 was known as the “year without a summer.” Crops failed worldwide, and in Europe and the United States an unexpected outcome was the invention of the bicycle as horses became too expensive to feed.
which is why more than 95% of practicing scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous.
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
So, according to NOAA, the chance that 2014 was the warmest on record was 48.0% and based on their table, the global surface temperature anomalies in 2014 appear in the range of “more unlikely than likely”.
Curiously, the NOAA omitted that all-important “more unlikely than likely” language from its main 2014 State of the Climate report webpage. You have to click on the Supplemental Information links to discover that 2014 was “more unlikely than likely” the warmest on record.
btw the 2100 scenario won't be allowed to happen. I am confident mankind will do something.
One idea is to install a mirror between the sun and earth in orbit between the Sun and Earth. Wouldn't cost that much. And who knows, maybe the giant earthquake in California would occur by then.
That, however, has been the worry with proposed technical fixes to the climate all along. We could fire a fleet of little mirrors into an orbit around the Sun that locks them in place to deflect sunlight from the Earth. But if it goes wrong, we could be plunged into an ice age. Manipulating the clouds has been a popular idea with would-be geo-engineers, but these proposals face the fact that the climate effects of clouds are among the hardest parts of the climate system to understand and predict, so we can’t be too sure what the results will be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?