2015 hottest year. By. Far.

Written By: - Date published: 9:55 am, January 21st, 2016 - 232 comments
Categories: climate change, economy, global warming - Tags: , , ,

So as expected 2015 has been confirmed as the hottest year on record, by far.

Just to state the obvious:

“Record shattering” NASA announcement indicates NZ faces extreme weather events

Climate change disaster is biggest threat to global economy in 2016, say experts

There are no jobs on a dead planet

The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

and so on and so on.

2015-heat-map

2015-temperature-graph-hottest-year

232 comments on “2015 hottest year. By. Far. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. marty mars 1
    21 January 2016 at 10:37 am

    That red map shouts with the sound of inevitability – I don’t know what to do so I’ll do what I can to build resilience and community.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      21 January 2016 at 11:53 am

      Yep. Government and all political parties refuse to tell people the truth. Instead they try and sweeten us with a game of pretend and extend: as if carbon trading schemes, international conferences and electric cars will save us from this unfolding disaster.

  2. Bill 2
    21 January 2016 at 10:42 am

    No-one will be to blame. No organisation or institution will be to blame. An abstracted concept of ‘you’ (and me) is going to be forced to carry the can.

    With various trade agreements ceding national law making and legislation to unaccountable international tribunals, governments over coming years can make a show of having tried to legislate or whatever, and then throw up their hands as their efforts are found to limit trade.

    Then, as we over-shoot any 2 degree target or whatever and the shit really starts to land, mouthpieces for ‘the market’ (the ideology that underpins those tribunals) will inform us all, that since consumers didn’t demand they not be sold bullshit that fucked the climate, then consumers (not citizens, not governments, not business) are to blame.

    Maybe it’d be an idea for people to be people and stand up about now with a view to slice, dice or otherwise disempower those institutions that are abrogating their duty to govern in the interests of people.

    Democracy anyone?

  3. Manuka AOR 3
    21 January 2016 at 10:49 am

    And in related news, California’s attorney general is taking on Exxon Mobil over their decades of lying about climate change: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/20/big-california-taking-exxonmobils-climate-cover

    “California’s attorney general has joined New York state in investigating Exxon Mobil’s decades-long climate change cover-up, probing what it knew about global warming, as well as what—and when—the oil giant disclosed to its shareholders and the public, according to the LA Times on Wednesday.”

    That state has good reason to be angry, as they enter their 4th year of record breaking drought: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/californias-drought/

  4. Steve Wrathall 4
    21 January 2016 at 11:49 am

    Yes, a continuation of the gentle warming we’ve observed as we’ve continued to recover from the Little Ice Age. Longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilisation, billions lifted out of poverty due to access to the cheap, reliable energy that fossil fuels provide, and no sign at all that sea level are rising faster than the 3mm/year that has been recorded since accurate satellite measurements became available.

    • marty mars 4.1
      21 January 2016 at 12:00 pm

      your bullshit should just be deleted

      • Steve Wrathall 4.1.2
        21 January 2016 at 12:15 pm

        Like the data that the climate modellers delete if it doesn’t fit their alarmist narrative?

        • You_Fool 4.1.2.1
          21 January 2016 at 2:19 pm

          no like the fictional data big oil comes up with then tries to present as an alternative to the real data and then come up with idiotic conclusions like yours…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2.2
          21 January 2016 at 4:12 pm

          Sure Steve, the people who sent a sky-crane to Mars to drop a robot there, landed on an asteroid, and sent us their holiday snaps of the Jets of Encaladus, are lying to you.

          It’s a conspiracy, Steve. They’re all Communists. They faked the Moon landings Steve. In fact, they’re controlling your amygdala using a harp (sp?).

          They have rockets too. Isn’t it time you built your bunker?

          • GregJ 4.1.2.2.1
            21 January 2016 at 6:05 pm

            In fact, they’re controlling your amygdala using a harp (sp?)

            The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) – it creates earthquakes and tsunamis as well don’t you know?

            I believe it was developed by the Discordians (Heil Eris! 🙂 ) in conjunction with the Bavarian Illuminati, the Gnomes of Zurich and the operators of the The Matrix and aided by the UFO Conspiracy. It is situated in the Bermuda Triangle – currently protected by the Adepts of Hermes and the Knights Templar. It’s ultimate goal is the opening of the Elder Gates to allow the Great Old Ones to rule the Earth once again.

            “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.”

          • Steve Wrathall 4.1.2.2.2
            22 January 2016 at 9:57 am

            For goodness sake, at least get your throwaway lines right. No I don’t deny that men have walked on the moon. And both Buzz Aldrin and Harrison Schmidt have come out against climate alarmism.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2.2.2.1
              22 January 2016 at 10:12 am

              NASA have rockets, Steve. They’re trying to set up a one world government Steve. You’d better get some reinforced concrete sorted out pronto. What’s that noise? It sounds like Jackboots Steve. Time’s running out you’d better do something.

        • Stuart Munro 4.1.2.3
          21 January 2016 at 8:31 pm

    • Colonial Viper 4.2
      21 January 2016 at 12:01 pm

      Hi Steve,

      even you can’t believe the incantations you keep mindlessly repeating.

      • Steve Wrathall 4.2.1
        21 January 2016 at 12:23 pm

        Which incantation in particular is not to be believed? That billions have been lifted out of poverty by access to energy? That CO2 boosts plant growth. Which ones do you specifically deny?

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1
          21 January 2016 at 5:43 pm

          Of course billions have been lifted out of poverty by a massive surplus of cheap available fossil fuels.

          That’s all going away over the next 30-40 years.

          • Paul 4.2.1.1.1
            21 January 2016 at 7:37 pm

            It’s actually frightening to see how many people believe climate denier nonsense.

          • Steve Wrathall 4.2.1.1.2
            22 January 2016 at 10:00 am

            Just like the peak oilers who said in the late ’90s that oil would peak between 2010 & 2020 at ~80 million barrels per day. It’s now almost 95 million.

      • RedLogix 4.3.1
        21 January 2016 at 9:36 pm

        Now Steveo will be chirpily thinking to himself, ” Woohoo, I’ve done the impossible!”

        • Pat 4.3.1.1
          21 January 2016 at 9:52 pm

          lol….I find it “impossible” to believe that any lay person does not accept the conclusions of years, in some cases a lifetime of study by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields…..(wait for the comparisons to flat earth)….its a wind up, or he’s brain dead.

          • jeff 4.3.1.1.1
            22 January 2016 at 10:40 pm

            So if the majority believe something it must be scientific proof – got it!

            • Pat 4.3.1.1.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 11:51 pm

              “accept the conclusions of years, in some cases a lifetime of study by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields…”

              as opposed to the thoughts of those without expertise or study

      • Steve Wrathall 4.3.2
        22 January 2016 at 10:07 am

        “Executive director Russel Norman said one of the key impacts of climate change was more droughts, more floods and rising sea levels.”
        -the same guy who was predicting $10/L petrol by now.
        https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/10-litre-petrol-prices-decade-wake-call
        And where is the evidence of his increased droughts & floods? Sea levels are still only rising by the non-alarming 3 mm/year (a foot per century), and yet the alarmists are still predicting metres.

        • Pat 4.3.2.1
          22 January 2016 at 10:17 am

          so whats your field of expertise Steve, are you perhaps that incredibly rare combination of physicist,chemist,biologist, metrologist, glaciologist and oceanographer?…oh and since you raised the price of oil, economist as well?

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    21 January 2016 at 11:55 am

    Seriously, NZ needs to be 80% off fossil fuels in the next 20 years. Time for a political party to say that and enact that.

    • BM 5.1
      21 January 2016 at 11:59 am

      Never happen, so what now?

      • Paul 5.1.1
        21 January 2016 at 12:01 pm

        It will.
        It’ll just be too late.

        • Murray Simmonds 5.1.1.1
          22 January 2016 at 7:32 am

          Yep, exactly right once again Paul (I was gonna say “Dead Right” but it didn’t quite seem to have the appropriate connotations,)

          Maybe I’ll settle for “TOO right!”

          I find climate change deniers to be utterly amazing people – having been personally convinced that impending climate change was a reality LONG before it became socially and academically acceptable to do so.

          I can understand to some extent WHY the shrinking population of CCD’s believe what they choose to believe in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

          The bit that amazes me is is the fact that they fail to realize that their erroneous personal belief system is their own personal private problem and is therefore something that they personally will have to deal with for themselves. Yet they insist nevertheless on trying to foist their potty opinions on a saner, more rational population.

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.2
        21 January 2016 at 12:02 pm

        Could be Marty Mars is spot on – focus on your on own personal, family and community resilience, because Wellington is going to be the problem, not the solution.

        • BM 5.1.2.1
          21 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

          He is.

          People won’t change until a the problem is punching them repeatedly in the face and even then excuses will be made not to change.

          That’s just the way people are.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1
            21 January 2016 at 12:15 pm

            I’ll agree with you that’s the way a significant majority of people are. 70% to 80% maybe? In a democracy that is the power block, of course.

            • BM 5.1.2.1.1.1
              21 January 2016 at 12:22 pm

              Instead of worrying about fossil fuel usage and carbon foot prints a better bet would be to focus on how we continue to grow food in a changing environment.

              • BM …
                21 January 2016 at 12:29 pm

                This is how I reckon it it will be in the future.

                http://motherboard.vice.com/read/high-tech-vegetable-factories-the-future-of-urban-farming

                No longer at the whim of nature, you can produce what you need, in a controlled environment, right in the middle of where people live.

                • Bill …
                  21 January 2016 at 5:16 pm

                  It’s still at the whim of nature, but sure, less so.

                  Nevertheless, what happens when a prolonged drought means there is no water to collect and cycle efficiently around you’re in-door environment?

                  What happens when the part of the grid your in-door facility relies on falls over due to spiking drought/heat related demands that it can’t cope with?

                  What happens when those high winds increase by 10%, given that a 10% increase in wind speed results in much more than a 10%+ on the damage inflicted front?

                  Even if your facility rides it all out, what about the distribution networks (rail buckled in heat and roads melting out or, alternatively, rail and road washed out or blocked by intense rain or wind) and all those city scapes that, due to extreme weather events, have, yet again and for a longer period this time, no electricity and so, no water and no functioning transport system?

                  • BM …
                    21 January 2016 at 5:51 pm

                    Nevertheless, what happens when a prolonged drought means there is no water to collect and cycle efficiently around you’re in-door environment?

                    Desalination plants
                    Recycle body wastes

                    What happens when the part of the grid your in-door facility relies on falls over due to spiking drought/heat related demands that it can’t cope with?

                    Solar or wind power

                    What happens when those high winds increase by 10%, given that a 10% increase in wind speed results in much more than a 10%+ on the damage inflicted front?

                    Underground

                    Even if your facility rides it all out, what about the distribution networks (rail buckled in heat and roads melting out or, alternatively, rail and road washed out or blocked by intense rain or wind) and all those city scapes that, due to extreme weather events, have, yet again and for a longer period this time, no electricity and so, no water and no functioning transport system?

                    Local production, no need for large transport infrastructure.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 January 2016 at 6:41 pm

                      Desalination plants are a great idea. But you need to run them off oil, coal or nuclear.

                    • Bill …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:37 pm

                      Nice theoretical ‘fixes’ for the first three things raised… but how? I mean, the thing you have built gets hit by shit. And you just turn around and install some big fancy techno fix over night? Even if you built your desalination plants and what not from the get go, they are subject to storm and wind damage. Your solar and wind power units… same. The grid that transports the power they produce….same. Your workers’ homes…same. The roads/rail or whatever transport network they travel on… same.

                      And then you suggest ‘a million and one’ small scale/local production units. All vulnerable, but at least there’s a back-up possibility with that scenario.

                    • BM …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:41 pm

                      The video in the link I provided is for a indoor farm in Japan.

                      It produces 10,000 head of lettuce per day, all you need is power and a bit of water(95% less than traditional farming) and that can be replicated any where in the world.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    21 January 2016 at 6:04 pm

                    The answer to your questions is that we are going to be able to support far fewer people per square hectare of land than we can today. Today we have easy access to operating diesel powered farm machinery, high energy chemical inputs (fertiliser, herbicides, insecticides), and a massive fossil fuel powered logistics system.

                    Nevertheless we will be far more prepared if we get away from monocultures and if we begin to localise food production.

                    In my view, some parts of the world will be totally uninhabitable by humans within the next 50. In NZ I think we will be luckier than that.

                    • Pat …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:36 pm

                      “In my view, some parts of the world will be totally uninhabitable by humans within the next 50. In NZ I think we will be luckier than that.”

                      except that many have already figured that out and we will have a lot of long lost relatives turning up on our doorstep…hell, many of the wealthy have already bought or built their bolt-holes

        • alwyn 5.1.2.2
          21 January 2016 at 3:04 pm

          “Wellington is going to be the problem”
          What did we, the residents of Wellington, ever do to hurt you?
          What did our magnificent city ever do to hurt you?
          Blame the Government, or probably more accurately, blame all politicians.
          After all, the carbon footprint of every one of the New Zealand MPs far exceeds that of an average New Zealand resident.
          But don’t blame all us poor residents of Wellington.
          We already have enough to suffer from our Council and Councillors. We don’t need the opprobrium of the rest of the country

          • Sabine 5.1.2.2.1
            21 January 2016 at 3:18 pm

            welcome to the Auckland syndrome.
            I am sure that the ‘if you can’t handle you can move’ meme will fit Wellingtonians as much as it fits Aucklanders. (For the record i have lived in both cities and have family in both cities. – and I guess that is true for large part of the country).

            but really I think with “Wellington will be the problem ” – Wellington refers to the government, which last i checked you seemed to support. So why suddenly so defensive.

      • marty mars 5.1.3
        21 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

        what do you care? you’ll just do whatever you want anyway, won’t you?

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    21 January 2016 at 12:05 pm

    The whole framing of how climate change will adversely affect the economy and jobs also falls straight into the neolib conception of society that money and the economy are everything.

  7. Poission 7
    21 January 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Just to state the obvious:

    El Nino

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      21 January 2016 at 12:13 pm

      Ok then – this El Nino has been the hottest one on record by far.

      Feel better about it now?

    • Steve Wrathall 7.2
      21 January 2016 at 12:37 pm

      Yes, it’s not unusual for an El Nino year to be hotter than the preceding. In this case we’re told 2015 is hotter than 2014 by 0.18 deg C. This is “far”? Far call.

      • JonL 7.2.1
        21 January 2016 at 2:11 pm

        Are you a Conservative politician?

      • Paul 7.2.2
        21 January 2016 at 6:39 pm

        It’s impossible to deny climate change following the record breaking temperatures last year, a scientist from the American space agency NASA says.
        Compton Tucker told RNZ News there was every reason to believe that 2016 would break last year’s record.
        “We’re starting to see the death of climate change denial, that is the evidence accumulated from multiple sources.
        “The evidence is overwhelming and there are people who are wilfully ignorant about climate change and they invoke a wide variety of mechanisms which are pretty silly.”

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/294637/impossible-to-deny-climate-change-nasa

      • Colonial Viper 7.2.3
        21 January 2016 at 6:43 pm

        Steve Shit Head Wrathall

        Hottest year ever, shit head, even including all previous El Nino’s, that’s the important part in case you miss it again.

    • Poission 7.3
      21 January 2016 at 1:37 pm

      El nino is an internal structure,the external forcing is the mode locked response to the annual cycle (boreal winter) ie decrease in external forcing.{ jin 1994}

      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/264/5155/70

      It is also a dissipative structure that releases heat from the ocean to the atmosphere decreasing the kinetic energy and increasing the available potential energy ( cold water upwelling) of the ocean.

      • Manuka AOR 7.3.1
        21 January 2016 at 2:33 pm

        “that releases heat from the ocean to the atmosphere”

        The deeper ocean is heating up with increasing speed, according to a study published this week.

        “Nearly half of the increases in ocean temperature between 1865-2015 occurred in just the past 20 years, a rate which is steadily getting quicker, a new study published Monday reveals.

        “Deep underwater, below 700 meters, the ocean holds 35 percent of the world’s heat associated with greenhouse gases—an increase from the 20 percent it had absorbed just two decades ago, according to the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Little is known about temperature measurement at that depth, which is partially what makes the findings so distressing, the researchers said.

        “In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean,” said lead author Peter Gleckler, a scientist with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

        “The takeaway is that the rate, at which the global ocean is absorbing excess heat, has rapidly increased—so that in more recent times since 1997, it has absorbed as much heat as it took over 100 [years] to absorb,” Gleckler said. “That is alarming.” http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/18/deep-ocean-warming-happening-alarming-and-increasingly-rapid-rate

      • Macro 7.3.2
        21 January 2016 at 8:59 pm

        Suck on this
        How 2015 compares to other record years.
        El Nino pppppft!

        (yes el nino has had something to do with it – just now we are are beginning on another level of warming)

    • b waghorn 7.4
      21 January 2016 at 2:58 pm

      “”El Niño is a natural cycle of warming in the Pacific Ocean which has a global impact on weather. But scientists are clear that the vast majority of the warming seen in 2015 was due to the emissions from human activity.””

      That’s from one of the links that you obviously didn’t bother reading.

  8. Murray Simmonds 8
    21 January 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “A catastrophe caused by climate change is seen as the biggest potential threat to the global economy in 2016, according to a survey of 750 experts conducted by the World Economic Forum.”‘

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/14/climate-change-disaster-is-biggest-threat-to-global-economy-in-2016-say-experts

    (<<Cited above in the main article).

    Well, I suppose 750 experts "couldn't be wrong".

    Except that, IMO, we don't need climate change to trash the current world economic system. It will do that all by itself . . . .

    Thanks to MAINSTREAM ECONOMIC THEORY.

  9. acrophobic 9
    21 January 2016 at 6:24 pm

    So, 2016 was the hottest year in a 135 year climate record for a planet that is 4.543 billion years old.

    • Paul 9.1
      21 January 2016 at 6:39 pm

      It’s impossible to deny climate change following the record breaking temperatures last year, a scientist from the American space agency NASA says.
      Compton Tucker told RNZ News there was every reason to believe that 2016 would break last year’s record.
      “We’re starting to see the death of climate change denial, that is the evidence accumulated from multiple sources.
      “The evidence is overwhelming and there are people who are wilfully ignorant about climate change and they invoke a wide variety of mechanisms which are pretty silly.”

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/294637/impossible-to-deny-climate-change-nasa

      • acrophobic 9.1.1
        21 January 2016 at 6:46 pm

        “It’s impossible to deny climate change following the record breaking temperatures last year, a scientist from the American space agency NASA says.”

        More alarmist misrepresentation. No-ones denying climate change. It is the extent of anthropogenic influence that is in question.

        “We’re starting to see the death of climate change denial, that is the evidence accumulated from multiple sources.”

        Beware of claims such as this. They are like the 97% consensus claims…utter bs and so easy to rsfute.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          21 January 2016 at 7:19 pm

          Another Shit Head, I see.

          For most of the multi-billion year life of the Earth, human life was unsupportable.

          For you to deny that it can happen again is what is really stupid.

          • acrophobic 9.1.1.1.1
            22 January 2016 at 9:47 am

            Life on earth began billions of years ago CV. All those billions of years later we have the most advanced forms of life ever to inhabit the planet. We have survived far worse climatic conditions that we are experiencing today, without the help of politically and financially motivated doom merchants. For you to deny that is really stupid.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 10:52 am

              How do you know what climate conditions have been in the past: all the information about it is infected by the big conspiracy.

              • acrophobic …
                22 January 2016 at 11:12 am

                We have a reasonable idea, OAB. That’s why the alarmists are getting called out.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 January 2016 at 12:03 pm

                  Called out by everyone except “the Academies of Science of all countries, and NASA, and the Pentagon, and Munich Re, and NOAA, and NIWA, and the Met Office, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Chemical Society, and the American Geophysical Union, and the American Medical Association, and the American Meteorological Society, and the American Physical Society, and the Geological Society of America, and many, many more.”

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 12:24 pm

                    It’s all about the $$$’s OAB. And you’re list conveniently omits that there are dissenters within some of the very organisations you cite, as well as widely across the scientific spectrum.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 5:18 pm

                      Oh noes!!! Dissenters! Proof of nothing other than science as usual. If you had a clue you’d know that.

                      Still laughing at your witless attempt to co-opt Muller 😆

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      You are using the appeal to authority fallacy. I am turning it back on you. I know you don’t like it, perhaps you are too simple to understand it, but a fallacy it is.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 5:42 pm

                      It’s just that when I appeal to authority, I check their bona fides, whereas you cite Muller, because you didn’t.

                      Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

                      Richard A Muller.

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 5:47 pm

                      Appeal to authority:

                      An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

                      Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
                      Person A makes claim C about subject S.
                      Therefore, C is true.
                      This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

                      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

                      You really fit that description perfectly OAB.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      23 January 2016 at 6:11 am

                      This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.

                      What illegitimate about the Academies of Science of every country in the world? Is Muller legitimate: we’ve both cited him, with hilarious results in your case.

                    • BlueSky …
                      25 January 2016 at 5:31 am

                      Yep all about the $$$. Denial enables the status quo to continue so the oil industry can continue to make the $$$.

                      I hope that the denialist have not pushed us past a tipping point. Cause if they have, life for large chunks of humanity is going to get a lot more uncomfortable.

                      They will deny any responsibility of course and certainly will not be held accountable.

        • Stuart Munro 9.1.1.2
          21 January 2016 at 7:25 pm

          I doubt your views are informed by the literature.

          So who are these heroic dissenters – last one I heard of was Freeman Dyson – clever guy, but project Orion was even crazier than you. NASA canned it.

        • Paul 9.1.1.3
          21 January 2016 at 7:26 pm

          Please go away and play in the sand pit with your denier friends.
          You’ll find them here.
          http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

          Discussing dealing with climate change is for grown ups.

          • acrophobic 9.1.1.3.1
            22 January 2016 at 9:59 am

            Please read up some more Paul. Science is for people with a mind prepared to challenge, not soak up the latest AGW hyperbole like a sponge.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.3.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 5:21 pm

              Like Muller, for example 😆

              • Paul …
                22 January 2016 at 5:23 pm

                He will never stop.
                You know that, don’t you?

              • acrophobic …
                22 January 2016 at 5:40 pm

                Like a lot of people. You included.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 January 2016 at 5:46 pm

                  You’re the one who cited Muller, plagiarist. Now I’m citing him back at you do you wish you hadn’t?

                  Remember? You cited Muller’s doubts about Mann’s hockey stick, and then it turned out Muller did his own study and it’s a hockey stick, and you didn’t know that, and now you look like a National Party supporter.

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 10:58 pm

                    Muller’s doubts were well founded. And born out by subsequent investigations:

                    It also confirmed that Mann’s algorithm, which used non-centered principal component analysis, mines for hockey stick shapes from random red noise data as previously shown by McKitrick and McIntyre, and notes that “uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”

                    Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states “Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. It also states “In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the “independent” studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here.

                    Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.

                    David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland’s paper – “Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The ‘Hockey Stick’ Affair and its Implications” published by “Energy & Environment”, October 2007 here.

                    David Holland says “it is scandalous that the WGI Chapter 6 authors ignored most of its [NRC Report] substantive findings. Despite the clear analysis in Wegman et al. showing the lack of independence between the various temperature reconstructions, the authors of AR4 WGI Chapter 6 persisted with their reliance on a spaghetti diagram of reconstructions in Figure 6.10(b) to continue to justify the claim that Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.” http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=711

                    The hockey stick was a fraud, and you’ve fallen for it.

                  • Korero Pono …
                    23 January 2016 at 8:26 am

                    OAB + 100 🙂

                    • marty mars …
                      23 January 2016 at 7:56 pm

                      yep + infinity for the dirty, rotten job that you are engaged in. The phobicstink will wash off mate, but it may take time with that one 🙂

    • b waghorn 9.2
      21 January 2016 at 6:42 pm

      Yes and you’re point is?
      Are you to stupid to realise the humans are fully capable of modifying our planets closed loop system so badly that it could quite possible be catastrophic.
      Even if you don’t believe the legions of scientists, basic logic says if you cut most of the forests down and burn millions of tonnes of oil and coal annually. its going tho have an impact.

      • Paul 9.2.1
        21 January 2016 at 6:44 pm

        We’re wasting our time….

      • acrophobic 9.2.2
        21 January 2016 at 6:49 pm

        “Are you to stupid to realise the humans are fully capable of modifying our planets closed loop system so badly that it could quite possible be catastrophic.”

        No, I am smart enough to realise we can do no such thing.

        “Even if you don’t believe the legions of scientists…”

        Ah the old appeal to authority fallacy. What about the ‘legions’ of scientists who disagree with you? Do you not know about them?

        • Colonial Viper 9.2.2.1
          21 January 2016 at 7:21 pm

          Seriously, who cares what you think? You’re just a shill for the status quo. A serf for the oligarchy. Someone who seems to enjoy licking the rich italian leather boots belonging to his wealthy masters.

          Educated, but gutless. What a combo.

          • Paul 9.2.2.1.1
            21 January 2016 at 7:23 pm

            +1

          • acrophobic 9.2.2.1.2
            22 January 2016 at 9:57 am

            There are many scientists whose work I read that question the AGW hypothesis. Science is sequence of testing and challenging, it is not a process of shutting down dissent.

        • Andre 9.2.2.2
          21 January 2016 at 8:18 pm

          acrophobic, do you realise that all you are doing here is advertising that you are utterly impervious to reason and evidence?

          Reason, in that science has known for around 150 years that increasing CO2 concentrations by 50 %, doubling methane and adding a whole lot of others will increase the average temperature of the earth. That’s really simple physics. The hard bit is working out the when, where, and how much temperature rise will happen.

          Evidence, in that there’s a huge number of different lines of evidence that says temperatures are changing fast, much faster that any other time in history. Ice caps shrinking, animals and plants moving their habitats to higher latitudes and altitudes, direct temperature measurement records, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and the list goes on and on.

          Frankly, the fuckwittery you’re putting out on this topic really trashes your credibility on any other topic.

          • acrophobic 9.2.2.2.1
            22 January 2016 at 9:33 am

            And yet there are literally thousands of scientists who share my skepticism. And so I read your personal attack as nothing more than a weak attempt to shut down debate.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2.2.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 10:28 am

              We’ve been over this sweety: the ability to repeat things you read on the Internet doesn’t make you a debater. You could quite easily be replaced with a wingbot and no-one would be any the wiser.

        • b waghorn 9.2.2.3
          21 January 2016 at 8:40 pm

          Acrophobic Feel free to link you’re scientific proof at any stage .

          • acrophobic 9.2.2.3.1
            22 January 2016 at 9:34 am

            I have. Many, many times.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2.3.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 9:46 am

              I am smart enough to realise we can do no such thing.

              🙄

              Yes, you must be right, because the American Geological Society and the Geological Society of London use the term Anthropocene, but they’re part of the big conspiracy against you.

              • acrophobic …
                22 January 2016 at 9:55 am

                There’s no big conspiracy. Just a lot of money$$$. And a lot of scientists who don’t buy the AGW bs.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:07 am

                  Nah mate, in order for them to tell these awful lies, they’d have to co-ordinate, get all their stories to line up. That’s a conspiracy.

                  They should be investigated. No, wait. They have been investigated. Oh noes, all the investigators must be in on it too!

                  It’s the Anthropocene Conspiracy. One day it’ll be a movie. You’ll be played by Matt Damon. Stick to your guns mate you’ll be vindicated and that’ll show everyone!

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 5:49 pm

                    “Nah mate, in order for them to tell these awful lies, they’d have to co-ordinate, get all their stories to line up. That’s a conspiracy.”
                    No, not necessarily. All they have to do is know what’s in the trough and how to access it.

                • Macro …
                  22 January 2016 at 5:47 pm

                  And a lot of scientists who don’t buy the AGW bs.

                  Name one – and their area of expertise.

                  Judith Curry and the Nova don’t count – they have been roundly debunked in the scientific lit. many, many, times.

                  Nor does the departed Carter – his few pronouncements on Climate science have all been shown to be deeply flawed.

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 5:52 pm

                    1. Richard Lindzen

                    Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called “climate alarmism.”

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

                    How many would you like me to list?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 6:14 pm

                      Lindzen needs to seriously consider his membership of the US National Academy of Sciences.

                      How can he continue as a member of an organisation that commits deliberate, sophisticated fraud* and hold his head up high?

                      *only morans believe this.

                    • Macro …
                      22 January 2016 at 7:37 pm

                      Wow! Two – both of whom have been soundly debunked in the scientific literature.

                      Lizden hasn’t published anything of note for the past 4 years. Almost every claim he has made has been shown to be incorrect. How he continues to hold his academic position one has to wonder – of course it pays to have powerful friends.
                      Christy – with Spencer has been shown to be incorrect. Academic vanity once again got in the way of reality.
                      So yes there are a couple who seek fame by making outlandish claims as opposed to thousands of other climate scientists who are certain as to the reasons for the evidence the see around them – 97% (if not more) of Climate Scientists in fact.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 January 2016 at 8:43 pm

                      I see Acrophobic is still spreading his message of Piety to the Status Quo at all costs.

                      Does he realise that the corporate $$$ elite view him as a useful idiot?

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 9:46 pm

                      It’s quite simple, it’s called science. That discipline where differing views are not only permitted but actively encouraged. Lindzen seems to agree with it.

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 5:58 pm

                    2. John Christy

                    “John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.”

                    “In 2014, Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in which they criticized climate models as making inaccurate predictions. He also dismissed the scientific consensus on global warming by arguing that there was a consensus about putrefaction causing scurvy, which was later acknowledged to be wrong.”

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 6:08 pm

                      Christy needs to seriously consider his membership of the American Meteorological Society. How can he continue as a member of an organisation that commits deliberate, sophisticated fraud* and hold his head up high?

                      *results may vary according to personal ethics.

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 9:45 pm

                      It’s quite simple, it’s called science. That discipline where differing views are not only permitted but actively encouraged. Christy seems to agree with it.

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 9:47 pm

                    “Wow! Two – both of whom have been soundly debunked in the scientific literature.”

                    Ah, no. More alarmist lies. You really had no idea, did you. I can name a lot more too, if you like.

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:07 pm

                      3. Nir Shaviv

                      “Nir Joseph Shaviv (Hebrew: ניר יוסף שביב‎, born July 6, 1972) is an Israeli‐American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is a professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,[1] of which he is now its chairman.”

                      “Shaviv was interviewed for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. In the film he states: ‘A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it’s CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say.’ In 2012, he contributed, along with Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta, to the book Die kalte Sonne. Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun) of Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, a book expressing skepticism of anthropogenic global warming, which attracted considerable interest in Germany.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 January 2016 at 10:39 am

                      Conclusion

                      Two main conclusions result from our analysis of Shaviv and Veizer [2003].The first is that the correlation of CRF and climate over the past 520 m.y.appears to not hold up under scrutiny.

                      Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor.

                      The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation.We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated.

                      Our second conclusion is independent of the first.Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of
                      the effect of a CO2 doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis that
                      implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents,for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors,can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate.

                      The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that Shaviv and Veizer [2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.

                      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Rahmstorf_etal_1.pdf

                      So the astrophysicist may know a lot about stars, but is less than convincing on earth’s climate. And nothing much has come of his ideas on the topic in the years since.

                    • acrophobic …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:03 pm

                      “Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor.”

                      That parts the giveaway. Because this is precisely how alarmists work. They make precisely the same errors they accuse others of making, by claiming links that are not definitive. Come back with something better than that.

                    • acrophobic …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

                      …meanwhile…

                      4. Lennart Bengtsson
                      Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability.

                      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

                      Note: Bengtsson was hounded from his position at GWPF by the disgusting actions of some scientists.

                      “A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘Mc-Carthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world.
                      Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as ‘virtually unbearable’.

                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

                      Why are alarmists so threatened by dissent? And Bengtsson was not even a ‘strong’ dissenter.

                    • acrophobic …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:21 pm

                      “Two main conclusions result from our analysis of Shaviv and Veizer [2003].”

                      You’ve critiqued the wrong work! I cited 2012, based on his 2011 work with Shlomi Ziskin on solar variability.

                    • RedLogix …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

                      Oh that. Shaviv starts out in 2003 with a paper that is full of errors, some that even I can work out for myself, proposing a 32 MILLION year correlation with cosmic ray forcing (CRF) from the solar system motion in the galaxy, with a heavily smoothed reconstruction full of uncontrolled variables. Even if he is right, it’s was just plain weak. No-one was going to overturn the much stronger CO2 argument on that basis.

                      His more recent efforts show little better chances of convincing anyone.

                      Abstract:

                      Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements.

                      The satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epochsuperpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales.

                      Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the
                      1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal.

                      Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain.

                      Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.

                      http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf

                      Again .. if this guy want’s to build a case he will just have to do better. Weak science does not trump strong science.

                    • acrophobic …
                      23 January 2016 at 4:41 pm

                      Your cite doesn’t mention Shaviv, from what I can see. Not only that, but Shaviv continues to write rebuttals of criticism,including
                      http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar.

                      There is a lot of published material broadly supporting Shaviv, so agree or disagree, he is a credible skeptic. And that’s where you’re diverting from what Macro asked (along with his 97% lie):

                      “And a lot of scientists who don’t buy the AGW bs.

                      Name one – and their area of expertise.”

                      I have named 4. And I’ll name more.

                    • Macro …
                      23 January 2016 at 5:21 pm

                      The 4 you mention does not even 1% of climate scientists make – and half of your 4 are NOT climate scientists – so that’s 99+% of climate scientist agree on AGW.
                      You are the one spreading porkies, it’s just that you are pig ignorant and don’t know it. A useful idiot for the fossil fuel companies.
                      You know, you can earn big bikkies by spreading such lies – are you on a retainer from Heartland? Bryan Leyland is – you should talk to him – get in on the act.

                    • acrophobic …
                      23 January 2016 at 5:29 pm

                      “The 4 you mention does not even 1% of climate scientists make ”

                      You only asked for one!

                      “– and half of your 4 are NOT climate scientists – ”

                      So? Is Al Gore a climate scientist?

                      “so that’s 99+% of climate scientist agree on AGW.”

                      Cite?

        • Pat 9.2.2.4
          21 January 2016 at 11:47 pm

          Tell me acrophobic…do you get paid per dead cat or are you on retainer?

          • Paul 9.2.2.4.1
            22 January 2016 at 5:38 pm

            You have the patience of a saint.

            • Pat 9.2.2.4.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 5:56 pm

              reprise….curiously St Patrick was impatient with snakes

              • Paul …
                22 January 2016 at 6:00 pm

                I think acrophobic is one of the most poisonous we’ve had on this site.

                • Pat …
                  22 January 2016 at 6:20 pm

                  being a relative newcomer i have nothing to compare him (?) with…..but there certainly appears to be a few professional cat throwers

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    22 January 2016 at 8:46 pm

                    All around the world the elite are steadily losing credibility with the ordinary people. Of course, what that means is that the ruling class is doubling down on their game of pretending and extending the status quo.

                    Acrophobic is but one little cog in that big wheel.

                    • Pat …
                      22 January 2016 at 8:50 pm

                      “Of course, what that means is that the ruling class is doubling down on their game of pretending and extending the status quo.”

                      that would appear to be the case….but to what end? i have a theory or two but am open to suggestions

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:10 pm

                      it’s certainly one of the right questions to ask. Worth bearing in mind that the 0.001% are simply using the rest of the 1% to achieve their goals. History has shown that those goals tend to orbit around increasing and solidifying their power and their privilege.

    • Macro 9.3
      22 January 2016 at 5:37 pm

      NO! 2015 was the hottest year on record by quite a margin over 2014 and even 1998! – can’t claim “no warming for x years” now can you! Oh diddums. AND of the 15 hottest years on record 14 have occurred since 2000.
      And 2016 (that’s this year) is predicted to be even hotter still.
      Yes the planet may have been hotter in the geological past – pre history, but humans were not on the planet then. Life was much different, so it is a BS argument to claim that humans will not be affected by rising temperatures. Already parts of the planet are becoming uninhabitable. Try living in temps of 39 degrees plus. That is greater than body temp and your body spends most of its energy keeping itself cool.
      Heat waves are responsible for more deaths than flooding, and bush fires, etc, terrifying as those events are.

  10. UncookedSelachimorpha 10
    21 January 2016 at 6:49 pm

    There are climate change deniers posting here – how quaint! We should pickle them in jars so future generations can see that people were actually that stupid.

    • McFlock 10.1
      21 January 2016 at 7:22 pm

      Sadly, the one thing we can learn from history is that human stupidity is infinite and timeless.

      I have read that the rough prevalence of sociopaths in society, 2% or so, is actually evolutionarily useful. In times of crisis they often do unthinkable acts that preserve their community and especially gene-line. The trait is then regressed in times of plenty and easy as social structures re-establish.

      I wonder if the same can be said for dunces? An example might be Christopher Columbus – his trip to the Orient was viewed as foolhardy by other navigators not because they thought the world was flat but because they calculated it was spheroidal and therefore that the ocean distance would not be navigable. By virtue of listening to geographers who told him what he wanted to hear (that does sound familiar) Columbus thought Japan was located roughly at the west coast of Mexico.

      If we were on a Pangea-style supercontinent he would probably have just disappeared. As it was, he changed history.

    • Macro 10.2
      21 January 2016 at 8:07 pm

      🙂 love it!

    • Lara 10.3
      22 January 2016 at 8:26 am

      I notice their spin has gone from “the climate isn’t warming” to “the climate is warming but it’s not caused by humans, it’s a natural process that has happened before”.

      I hope they all live at sea level.

    • Korero Pono 10.4
      23 January 2016 at 8:36 am

      Uncooked + 100

  11. Scott M 11
    21 January 2016 at 6:49 pm

    Acrophobic – given the stakes involved, the precautionary principle needs to be applied.

    • acrophobic 11.1
      21 January 2016 at 7:01 pm

      Not when the precautionary measures involve potentially massive economic and social dislocation, and all based on dodgy science.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        21 January 2016 at 7:23 pm

        You fucker, actual economic and social dislocation is what is happening right now, under the status quo oligarchy you shill for.

        And you’re an arse for pretending to care in the slightest for the effects of “economic and social dislocation.” We have been reading your shitty shilling for weeks now, you know.

        It’s the elite 0.1% who are in for a rude shock.

        • Paul 11.1.1.1
          21 January 2016 at 7:31 pm

          You could make an argument that willfully promoting climate doubt is facilitating ecocide and genocide.
          Is it the equivalent of people loaded cattle wagons all round Europe between 1941 and 1945 or propagating the ideas in ‘Mein Kampf’ ?

          • acrophobic 11.1.1.1.1
            22 January 2016 at 9:50 am

            “You could make an argument that willfully promoting climate doubt is facilitating ecocide and genocide.”

            You could, but you’d be deluding yourself. And you’d be denying the scientific method.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 10:26 am

              Yes, you must be right, because Exxon are being harrassed by the conspirators too!

              First they came for the fossil fuel company executives, but I did not speak out because I was not a fossil fuel company executive.

              You’d better do something effective or you might be next: no-one’s safe.

              • Paul …
                22 January 2016 at 10:28 am

                Shall we try to return this debate to the actual issue?
                acrophobic and steve wrathall are derailing this thread, as planned.

                • Pat …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:40 am

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

                  n the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2] More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.[3][4][5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[7] and that human activity is driving it,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9]

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:41 am

                  Oh noes, the conspiracy goes even deeper than you think!

                  This is an unusual (as well as misleading) article…

                  I have rarely read such a misleading and factually inaccurate article. This is not science journalism and has no place in a magazine that purports to be a leading source of reliable news.

                  It’s ok, it turns out Peter Reich and David Barr are Al Gore in disguise.

                  Cunning, eh.

                  • acrophobic …
                    22 January 2016 at 11:05 am

                    It’s not a conspiracy. But it is a lot of people getting rich fooling suckers like you!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:12 am

                      So it’s mass fraud committed on global grand scale, by Al Gore and the Academies of Science of all countries, and NASA, and the Pentagon, and Munich Re, who have corrupted and suborned multiple scientific disciplines, falsified data – even to the extent of forging late 19thC Chemistry and 20thC Quantum Mechanics papers.

                      Not a conspiracy though. Bollocks it isn’t a conspiracy. How can you be so blind?

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:24 am

                      “So it’s mass fraud committed on global grand scale…”

                      No, just a combination of $$’s and lazy science. And again you are exaggerating the support for your hocus pocus. The earth isn’t the centre of the universe, OAB, yet I guess you would have argued it was.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:53 am

                      The Academies of Science of all countries, and NASA, and the Pentagon, and Munich Re, and NOAA, and NIWA, and the Met Office, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Chemical Society, and the American Geophysical Union, and the American Medical Association, and the American Meteorological Society, and the American Physical Society, and the Geological Society of America, and many, many more.

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      It’s all about funding. And the extraordinary lengths they’ll go to keep in the trough.

                      http://www.c3headlines.com/science-censorshipdeceit/

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

                      Oh noes! Troughers!!!

                      The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a “fake” and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

                      Oh! The humanity! Bluff called.

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:33 pm

                      This obsession with Heartland OAB. Yes they may well be in the trough. It’s deep and wide.

        • Pat 11.1.1.2
          21 January 2016 at 9:45 pm

          wouldn’t waste my energy CV….he’s as aware as anyone with more than a 2 digit IQ its happening and its cause….he’s bored and enjoys winding you up……and if Im wrong and he is a convinced denier then he’s akin to a suicide bomber and you won’t convert him

        • acrophobic 11.1.1.3
          22 January 2016 at 9:39 am

          Any economic and social dislocation happening now is happening irrespective of any actions of mankind. Let’s not make it worse by taking pointless action to address a problem we can’t have any (material) impact on.

        • acrophobic 11.1.1.4
          22 January 2016 at 11:36 pm

          “You fucker, actual economic and social dislocation is what is happening right now, under the status quo oligarchy you shill for.”

          Actually, no. The best at such things were the Soviets, but their little experiment failed.

      • dv 11.1.2
        21 January 2016 at 7:29 pm

        When NOT Taking precautionary measures WILL involve potentially massive economic and social dislocation, and all based on dodgy denier science.

        There fixed it for you.

        • acrophobic 11.1.2.1
          22 January 2016 at 9:40 am

          Found that first climate change refuge yet dv?

          • dv 11.1.2.1.1
            22 January 2016 at 9:50 am

            Huh?
            Glad to see you approve of the edit.

            • acrophobic 11.1.2.1.1.1
              22 January 2016 at 9:54 am

              OK, so you don’t understand. I’ll change tack. We can act to mitigate what is happening. We can not change the reality that it is happening. Climate change is predominantly a natural phenomena that has been occurring for as long as the planet has had a ‘climate’. Our impact on it is negligible.

              • dv …
                22 January 2016 at 10:18 am

                Thank you for that reply.

                I have a more optimistic view.
                And I hope you are wrong for the sake of my grand children.

                The temp rise is not negligible, and a lot of it is to do with fossil fuel emissions.

                How will you cope with the rise of insurance premiums

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:21 am

                  What makes you think he’ll get insurance at all: Munich Re are part of the Anthropocene Conspiracy too!

                • acrophobic …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:24 am

                  “The temp rise is not negligible…”

                  Well that depends whose forecasts you believe. The rise is likely to be small, and potentially beneficial.

                  “…and a lot of it is to do with fossil fuel emissions.”

                  No, not much at all as it happens.

                • Paul …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:26 am

                  Save your breath.
                  He will go on and on and on and on…..

                  • Macro …
                    22 January 2016 at 5:19 pm

                    Yep! A fool of the first order.

                    • Paul …
                      22 January 2016 at 5:21 pm

                      I have posted quite a lot of stats from the NASA report. ( 15 to 19)
                      Makes for concerning reading.

                    • acrophobic …
                      22 January 2016 at 11:15 pm

                      “I have posted quite a lot of stats from the NASA report. ( 15 to 19)
                      Makes for concerning reading.”

                      Relying on NASA makes for concerning reading.

                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

                      “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right

                      The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
                      The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.”

  12. RedLogix 12
    21 January 2016 at 8:15 pm

    Interesting item from Davos:

    In front of world leaders, business chiefs and campaigners, DiCaprio said:

    We simply cannot afford to allow the corporate greed of the coal, oil and gas industries to determine the future of humanity. Those entities with a financial interest in preserving this destructive system have denied, and even covered up the evidence of our changing climate.

    Enough is enough. You know better. The world knows better. History will place the blame for this devastation squarely at their feet.”

    The solution to limiting global warming, he added, is to leave oil, gas and coal reserves alone:

    Our planet cannot be saved unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong. Twenty years ago, we described this problem as an addiction. Today, we possess the means to end this reliance.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/leonardi-dicaprio-savages-corporate-greed–big-oil-enough-is-enough

    • Macro 12.1
      21 January 2016 at 8:46 pm

      Exactly.
      Humanity can no longer reply on a laissez-faire economic system where the market decides what is to happen. That system got humanity into the total mess it is in today. When countries are faced with devastation from outside influences such as war, governments no longer leave the outcomes to chance – they divert all the energy to dealing with the problem.
      Of course S W, Acro, et al will say “what! we have had cyclones, typhoons, flooding, blizzards, droughts, sea innundation, and massive rain events before! no need to worry, it will all go away – eventually. Besides its far too expensive.
      This is just the start. People thought Churchill was crazy when he warned Britain to be wary of a militant Germany. When it did happen the need to ration, to utilise all resources towards the one end, was paramount.
      We have some warning – but it is getting to the stage where unless we take urgent action it will be too late. There is already more warming built into the system, and even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow the earth will continue to heat.
      We already have 1 degree of warming above pre-industrial temperatures – half of that in the last 40 odd years.
      We need to be taking urgent action on reducing GHG emissions now.
      That will not be achieved with letting the market rule. Governments around the world must provide incentives for their people to make the right choices with regard the use of fossil fuels, and they must also penalise those who make the wrong choices (ie place a high price on carbon) the monies collected to be used to incentivise correct choices.

    • Colonial Viper 12.2
      22 January 2016 at 2:57 pm

      Our planet cannot be saved unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong. Twenty years ago, we described this problem as an addiction. Today, we possess the means to end this reliance.”

      As long as “going without” is one of the “means to end this reliance” then sure, he’s right.

  13. johnm 13
    22 January 2016 at 11:18 am

    Afewknowthetruth says:
    January 22, 2016 at 8:52 am

    ‘As climate change threatens our very existence this Government is signing a deal to stop us from being able to pass laws to stop that’

    Yes, climate change -better referred to as planetary meltdown these days since it is accelerating at a phenomenal rate- does threaten continued existence of the human species (along with most others).

    The Permian Extinction Event -a natural event caused by release of CO2 by volcanoes that took place over thousands of years- wiped out about 90% of life on Earth. And present economic arrangements are geared to destabilising geochemical systems via CO2 emissions much, much faster than occurred during the Permian Extinction Event.

    The fact is, the present economic system cannot operate without destroying the long-term habitability of the Earth because the present economic system is totally dependent on burning fossil fuels and generating massive amounts of pollution. Anyone who says we can make steel or concrete or run complex transport and manufacturing systems without generating staggering amounts of CO2 is grossly ignorant. Or a liar.

    The only strategy that has any possibility of stopping climate change (and it’s probably far too late already because of the extraordinarily high CO2 concentration already in the atmosphere and oceans) is to shut down the globalised industrial economic system immediately. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is now the highest ever and is rising at the fastest rate ever (3.1ppm per annum). Every day that passes the predicament gets worse. Or rather is made worse.

    The most interesting aspect of the predicament we are in is that the industrialised global economic system is a self-annihilating system, and attempts to expand it simply compound all its inherent flaws, thereby shortening the life of the industrialised global system as well shortening life-as-we-know-it on Earth.

    No one (other than a tiny minority of well informed people) is willing to even talk about such matters, let alone do anything about them.

    TPPA will simply exacerbate every aspect of the predicament we are trapped in until the global economic system collapses -which it most certainly will fairly soon because the global economic system consumes or destroys every aspect required for it to persist.

    The sabotaging of the futures of every child in NZ (and everywhere else) by the maniacs in power will continue because scientific illiteracy and financial illiteracy are the norm in western societies and are particularly prevalent amongst politicians and bureaucrats.

    Robert Atack says:
    January 22, 2016 at 9:05 am

    For those with undying faith in this utterly fucked system, then the TPPA might be worth fighting.
    But at this extremely late stage in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter.
    You will need to understand exactly how utterly fucked we all are, which means doing some research, and opening you eyes/brains.
    The TPPA would be like the leaders on Easter Island agreeing to do X Y or Z to save their people from starving and reverting to cannibalism. Or the passengers in steerage on the Titanic agreeing not to push.
    Global trade is about over, humans can’t do a bloody thing to reduce the inevitable extinction of most of life on this rock – Near Term Extinction … is NEAR )
    We can not trade deal our way out of 402 – 700? ppm CO2e ( methane emissions are increasingly kicking in )
    The situation is so bad now, that even if we had a global nuclear war, the end result would be the same as if we all left the planet tonight, taking all our nuclear toys with us.
    The Human asteroid hit the planet upwards of 10,000 years ago (when we went agricultural), we are just waiting for the inevitable.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/01/21/new-papers-show-tppa-will-threaten-climate-change-laws-and-rob-maori-sovereignty-rights/

  14. Manuka AOR 14
    22 January 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Bolivia’s second largest lake, officially gone – evaporated. As the glaciers disappear, so do the water sources. The photos give an idea of the size of the lake bed – massive: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/bolivias-second-largest-lake-dries-up-and-may-be-gone-forever-lost-to-climate-change

  16. Paul 16
    22 January 2016 at 4:24 pm

    NOAA/NASA
    Annual Global Analysis for 2015
    2015 was by far the warmest year in the record

    Gavin A. Schmidt Director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    Thomas R.Karl, Director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf

  17. Paul 17
    22 January 2016 at 4:26 pm

    Global Temperature in 2015
    19 January 2016
    James Hansen, Makiko Satoa, Reto Ruedy,Gavin A. Schmidt, Ken Lob

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160120_Temperature2015.pdf

  19. Paul 19
    22 January 2016 at 4:29 pm

    2015 Global Significant Weather and Climate Events

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201513.gif

    • mickysavage 20.1
      22 January 2016 at 9:21 pm

      Do you realise that this is further evidence that the world’s weather patterns are in turmoil because of climate change?

Links to post